Re: Minimum standard of decency, was: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Roger Leigh I think that this behaviour, as well as that on other lists in the recent past, is making it increasingly necessary that we introduce some way of enforcing a minimum standard of decency on our lists. [...] You pillory[1] a man over his -private beliefs about death[2] to the point where he recoils from the project[3], Not at all. His beliefs are nothing to do with it, and never have been. I'm not sure where you got that from. don't answer off-list mail about it and then have the nerve to lecture about a minimum standard of decency? Breathtaking. You sent me a mail during a rather long flamewar. While I was grateful to receive it, I haven't yet replied to it, nor to any other public or private mail on that subject, for the past two weeks. I thought it would be better to let the flamewar die down. Everything that people wanted to say has already been said many times over, so I didn't think there anything more constructive to be gained from perpetuating it. Nevertheless, Craig Sanders's colourful rants break the lists code of conduct far more clearly than posting satire to -devel-announce. Where are the winged angels of vengence? But then, the d-d-a ban didn't look like it was about enforcing the list codes anyway. It was about enforcing the list codes. I'll ask the listmasters to look at this as well. -- Roger Leigh Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gutenprint.sourceforge.net/ Debian GNU/Linuxhttp://www.debian.org/ GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848. Please sign and encrypt your mail. pgpsCnhvFsutw.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Minimum standard of decency, was: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG
Adeodato Simó Are you deliberately lying here, to make your point prettier, or are you ciberately stating that Andrew lied himself in [3]? Neither. Thanks, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG
On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 01:31:30PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote: On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 06:13:14PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: no, the truth is, you're blinkered and inflexible and determined to twist [...] how long did it take to train you? can you do other tricks? Yes, I can also organize bug-squashing parties, work with the ftp and QA teams to ensure obsolete packages are removed from the archive, do NMUs in order to fix bugs in others packages, and propose release schedules. And what is it that you do for Debian again? Defender of the faith and arbiter of orthodoxy, was it, whose reasoning is so self-evident that it needs no defense but always justifies being an asshole to your fellow developers? Oh, oops, I've gone off script. I mean... ahem chicken butt. -- 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: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG
ma, 2006-01-30 kello 13:39 +1100, Craig Sanders kirjoitti: i'll behave as i please. if you don't like my words, then don't read them - kill file me if you feel it's necessary. Nobody has the right to be personally insulting on Debian lists. It would certainly be possible to express concern about the current issue without vitriol. Abusing other people hurts the discussion by poisoning the atmosphere and making it more difficult to be constructive and to reach a mutual understanding. Flaming and attacking people involved in the discussion is not going to help settle the issue. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG
Craig Sanders wrote: as has been pointed out hundreds of times before, there are several other situations where neither the DFSG nor the debian project require modifiability - license texts and copyright notices, for example. As has been pointed out hundreds more times, those limitations are imposed by copyright law more than by licences. Even the licences which can be modified (such as the GPL), can't be modified if you wish downstream recipients to exercise the permissions. You and your ilk may choose to ignore this as a minor detail and pretend that it's irrelevent, but that's because you're extremist nutcases highly skilled at ignoring reality when it contradicts your lunatic view. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Sun, Jan 29, 2006 at 05:13:26PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 12:09:55AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote: On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 02:29:38AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 01:45:40AM +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote: (2) The Invariant Sections - Main Objection Against GFDL [...] This argument has been brought up a number of times already, but it does not hold. no, it holds perfectly well. the trouble is that nutcases aren't in the least bit swayed by reason or logic - they have their own bizarre and psychotic mis-interpretation of reality and nothing, NOTHING, is ever going to sway them from it. Ah, ad hominem attacks. only indirectly. the real point, which you missed, was to be an accurate description of reality - something that, as an extremist nutcase, you are challenged by. Of course the argument doesn't hold. Invariant sections cannot be modified, and DFSG3 requires modifiability. EOT. bullshit. as has been pointed out hundreds of times before, there are several other situations where neither the DFSG nor the debian project require modifiability - license texts and copyright notices, for example. you and your ilk may choose to ignore this as a minor detail and pretend that it's irrelevent and no kind of precedent, but that's because you're extremist nutcases highly skilled at ignoring reality when it contradicts your lunatic viewpoint. Craig, None of your commentary above is constructive. If you have a point to make, please do so without the personal abuse. This sort of vitriol only serves to detract from your claims, be they valid or not. Regards, Roger - -- Roger Leigh Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gutenprint.sourceforge.net/ Debian GNU/Linuxhttp://www.debian.org/ GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848. Please sign and encrypt your mail. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8+ http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/ iD8DBQFD3fghVcFcaSW/uEgRAhBLAJ9PaMCS/HO5zz8aGAcxoGKeaDeDSACgp329 HkpgXm6jwkY+ecOIMzQSEpY= =9rhL -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- 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 30, 2006 at 09:24:15AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote: GIVE. IT. A. FUCKING. REST! Craig, I'm willing to debate whatever you want to debate about the GFDL, but not with insults and shouting. Respectfully, -- .../ -/ ---/ .--./ / .--/ .-/ .../ -/ ../ -./ --./ / -.--/ ---/ ..-/ .-./ / -/ ../ --/ ./ / .--/ ../ -/ / / -../ ./ -.-./ ---/ -../ ../ -./ --./ / --/ -.--/ / .../ ../ --./ -./ .-/ -/ ..-/ .-./ ./ .-.-.-/ / --/ ---/ .-./ .../ ./ / ../ .../ / ---/ ..-/ -/ -../ .-/ -/ ./ -../ / -/ ./ -.-./ / -./ ---/ .-../ ---/ --./ -.--/ / .-/ -./ -.--/ .--/ .-/ -.--/ .-.-.-/ / ...-.-/ -- 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 30, 2006 at 01:08:36PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 09:24:15AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote: GIVE. IT. A. FUCKING. REST! Craig, I'm willing to debate whatever you want to debate about the GFDL, but not with insults and shouting. no, the truth is, you're not. you're blinkered and inflexible and determined to twist every little thing until anyone reasonable just gives up. it's really not worth the bother of debating with extremist nutcases, you just go around and around in circles over the same ground. and you can't win. no matter what points you make, you jerks will just ignore them and THEN CONTINUE WITH THE SAME OLD LIES, NO MATTER HOW OFTEN OR HOW RECENTLY THEY HAVE BEEN DISCREDITED. and when that isn't working, or perhaps just for variety, you lot throw in all sorts of stupid non-sequitirs and tangents to distract and side-track any argument so that it gets bogged down in irrelevancies. for months. or years. and again and again and again. i've been suckered into playing that game before. i have no interest in doing so again. the only sane response is to just try to ignore you creeps as much and for as long as possibleand mostly i succeed. i don't even bother reading the debian lists more than once every two or three months these days - and whenever i do, the same damn arguments are raging. how long have you zealots dragged this GFDL one out for? one year? two years? or is it three? and it's EXACTLY the same fucking argument. after all this time. nothing ever changes. and before that it was trying to get rid of the non-free section of the archive, making such a huge fuss about the dreadful non-free programs in there. nobody even bothered evaluating all the software to figure out what kind of non-free software it was - until I didi went through every single package in non-free and made notes on their licenses, and IIRC there were less than a dozen (out of about 200 or so) that didn't have source or didn't allow modification or redistribution. almost all of the licensing problems were trivial or only prohibited commercial exploitation. not exactly free, but nothing to get rabidly upset about, either (in fact, IIRC some of the authors were subsequently contacted and agreed to change the license terms so that they were truly free - that's the RIGHT way to fix problems). even being presented with facts like that didn't stop the argument, BECAUSE YOU ARSEWIPES AREN'T INTERESTED IN FACTS OR REALITY, you're only interested in your bullshit uber-zealot point of view. anything not matching your loony extemist prejudices is ignored - it simply does not exist for you lot. that's why arguing with people like you is a complete waste of time. and as for the insults - frankly, people like you who have ruined the debian organisation deserve a lot worse than i've ever given you. BTW, here's a real world fact for you: repeating something false, no matter how loudly or how often you do it, DOES NOT MAKE IT TRUE. even writing a FAQ document doesn't turn a falsehood into truth. really. i know you'll find that hard to believe, but that's the way the *REAL WORLD* works. i'm not sure what world you live in, but you obviously believe it works very differently to the real world. it must be very nice for you. Respectfully, i have no respect for nutcases and vandals. debian was a great organisation before your ilk came along and ruined it. craig -- craig sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] (part time cyborg) -- 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 30, 2006 at 10:24:17AM +, MJ Ray wrote: Craig Sanders wrote: as has been pointed out hundreds of times before, there are several other situations where neither the DFSG nor the debian project require modifiability - license texts and copyright notices, for example. As has been pointed out hundreds more times, those limitations are imposed by copyright law more than by licences. Even the licences which can be modified (such as the GPL), can't be modified if you wish downstream recipients to exercise the permissions. you lot just never give it a rest, do you? the same old bullshit and lies over and over and over again. You and your ilk may choose to ignore this as a minor detail and pretend that it's irrelevent, but that's because you're extremist nutcases highly skilled at ignoring reality when it contradicts your lunatic view. oh, how cute. just like a talking doll. pull the string and it repeats your words back at you. and without too much dribbling! you must be very proud of your intellectual capacity, there were several words with more than two syllables in that lot. craig -- craig sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] (part time cyborg) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG
Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 10:24:17AM +, MJ Ray wrote: As has been pointed out hundreds more times, those limitations are imposed by copyright law more than by licences. Even the licences which can be modified (such as the GPL), can't be modified if you wish downstream recipients to exercise the permissions. you lot just never give it a rest, do you? Debunking your lies? Nope. Doesn't it just gut you? the same old bullshit and lies over and over and over again. Nice of you to admit you're just reheating year-old crap. Here, I'll save the trouble of one post/debunk cycle: you CAN modify an invariant section - but you can only do so by adding a new section that subverts or refutes or simply adds to the invariant section. (Craig Sanders, January 2005) vs If it is modified, it does not do its job. (RMS, May 2003) and so on and so forth. Even RMS's comments disagree with some pro-FDL Craig Sanders ones. Why should people believe Craig Sanders saying this is free software when even RMS doesn't do that AFAICT? -- MJ Ray - personal email, see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html Work: http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ irc.oftc.net/slef Jabber/SIP ask -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG
On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 01:34:45AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote: On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 01:08:36PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 09:24:15AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote: GIVE. IT. A. FUCKING. REST! Craig, I'm willing to debate whatever you want to debate about the GFDL, but not with insults and shouting. no, the truth is, you're not. you're blinkered and inflexible and determined to twist every little thing until anyone reasonable just gives up. That's simply not true. You may have discussed this with other people in the past, but not with me. You have sent me all of two mails that were full of insult, none of which contained anything which could pursuade me into buying your argument. The statement that I'm inflexible on this matter is an outright lie (to use your words) if there ever was one. Even in this very thread I've revised my opinion on the matter due to arguments which were presented to me in a _polite_ manner by Anton Zinoviev (before this thread, I was of the opinion that the transparent copies thing was a serious problem wrt the DFSG; right now, I'm not so sure anymore). If you're willing to try to pursuade me, I'm open to a polite discussion and will promise that I'll perform it in the same manner that I always do, i.e., with an open mind. But I don't have time to waste on personal abuse. Other than that, [...lots of personal abuse snipped...] debian was a great organisation before your ilk came along and ruined it. Ditto. Insulting people because they disagree with you is a very good way to make sure they won't like talking to you. Making sure people don't like talking to you is a very good way to deteriorate the way people generally feel in an organisation. And that's my final word on your behaviour. Again, if you're willing to politely discuss it, so am I; but I resent being called inflexible and I refuse to listen to anyone who's main modus operandi seems to be to throw any insult they can come up with in my general direction. -- .../ -/ ---/ .--./ / .--/ .-/ .../ -/ ../ -./ --./ / -.--/ ---/ ..-/ .-./ / -/ ../ --/ ./ / .--/ ../ -/ / / -../ ./ -.-./ ---/ -../ ../ -./ --./ / --/ -.--/ / .../ ../ --./ -./ .-/ -/ ..-/ .-./ ./ .-.-.-/ / --/ ---/ .-./ .../ ./ / ../ .../ / ---/ ..-/ -/ -../ .-/ -/ ./ -../ / -/ ./ -.-./ / -./ ---/ .-../ ---/ --./ -.--/ / .-/ -./ -.--/ .--/ .-/ -.--/ .-.-.-/ / ...-.-/ -- 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 30, 2006 at 03:09:53PM +, MJ Ray wrote: you CAN modify an invariant section - but you can only do so by adding a new section that subverts or refutes or simply adds to the invariant section. (Craig Sanders, January 2005) vs If it is modified, it does not do its job. (RMS, May 2003) and so on and so forth. Even RMS's comments disagree with some pro-FDL Craig Sanders ones. There is absolutely no contradictions between these two statements. It is not useful to change a text in invariant section (Stallman) but nevertheless it is possible to improve it by adding a new secondary section (Craig Sanders). BTW, I couldn't find the source of the quotation of Craig Sanders. Anton Zinoviev -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG
Lars Wirzenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Craig, could you please behave in a polite manner? Regardless of whether you're right or wrong about your claims about the GFDL, your manner is inappropriate on Debian mailing lists. Craig has already made it abundantly clear that he thinks the standards of decent behavior do not apply to him. The Project has made it abundantly clear that this is Just Fine. I do not rejoice in these facts; both of them make me quite sad, but such they are. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Lars Wirzenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Craig, could you please behave in a polite manner? Regardless of whether you're right or wrong about your claims about the GFDL, your manner is inappropriate on Debian mailing lists. Craig has already made it abundantly clear that he thinks the standards of decent behavior do not apply to him. The Project has made it abundantly clear that this is Just Fine. I do not rejoice in these facts; both of them make me quite sad, but such they are. I think that this behaviour, as well as that on other lists in the recent past, is making it increasingly necessary that we introduce some way of enforcing a minimum standard of decency on our lists. We can't continue like this for long. This sort of thing would result in immediate action on most (if not all) of the upstream lists I participate upon. You would have liked the vitriolic diatribe Craig mailed to me privately off-list, in response to my request for politeness, even less... Regards, Roger - -- Roger Leigh Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gutenprint.sourceforge.net/ Debian GNU/Linuxhttp://www.debian.org/ GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848. Please sign and encrypt your mail. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8+ http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/ iD8DBQFD3oyTVcFcaSW/uEgRAiAuAKDD+Qy6GR/7WVbERAfeGWkMTKkjCQCfe9Bo LVkLA86rEKjocxx9Z7BDV9U= =+wrJ -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG
Roger Leigh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I think that this behaviour, as well as that on other lists in the recent past, is making it increasingly necessary that we introduce some way of enforcing a minimum standard of decency on our lists. We can't continue like this for long. This sort of thing would result in immediate action on most (if not all) of the upstream lists I participate upon. It is also a violation of the list policy. But we see what happens when the listmasters decide to enforce the list policy. I wonder if they have the stomach to try again. Thomas -- 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 30, 2006 at 04:12:09PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 01:34:45AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote: On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 01:08:36PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: I'm willing to debate whatever you want to debate about the GFDL, but not with insults and shouting. no, the truth is, you're not. you're blinkered and inflexible and determined to twist every little thing until anyone reasonable just gives up. That's simply not true. You may have discussed this with other people in the past, but not with me. You have sent me all of two mails that were full of insult, none of which contained anything which could pursuade me into buying your argument. you'll have to excuse me if i see all you faceless drones who parrot the exact same mindless lies as interchangeable Zealot Propaganda Units. with one of you, as with all, there's no point in engaging in debate or any kind of civilised discourse. craig -- craig sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] (part time cyborg) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Minimum standard of decency, was: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG
Roger Leigh I think that this behaviour, as well as that on other lists in the recent past, is making it increasingly necessary that we introduce some way of enforcing a minimum standard of decency on our lists. [...] You pillory[1] a man over his -private beliefs about death[2] to the point where he recoils from the project[3], don't answer off-list mail about it and then have the nerve to lecture about a minimum standard of decency? Breathtaking. 1. http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/01/msg00954.html 2. http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/01/msg00968.html 3. http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2006/01/msg00073.html Nevertheless, Craig Sanders's colourful rants break the lists code of conduct far more clearly than posting satire to -devel-announce. Where are the winged angels of vengence? But then, the d-d-a ban didn't look like it was about enforcing the list codes anyway. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Minimum standard of decency, was: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Nevertheless, Craig Sanders's colourful rants break the lists code of conduct far more clearly than posting satire to -devel-announce. Where are the winged angels of vengence? But then, the d-d-a ban didn't look like it was about enforcing the list codes anyway. I have been upset with Craig for years, but the project decided that his colorful rants are acceptible conduct. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Minimum standard of decency, was: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG
* MJ Ray [Tue, 31 Jan 2006 00:25:48 +]: to the point where he recoils from the project[3], don't answer Are you deliberately lying here, to make your point prettier, or are you ciberately stating that Andrew lied himself in [3]? 3. http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2006/01/msg00073.html So long, -- Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org Listening to: Jacques Brel - La Fanette -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG
Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: with one of you, as with all, there's no point in engaging in debate or any kind of civilised discourse. So ... Why don't you just stop the flaming, if there's no point anyway? I have the feeling that this would somehow improve the climate of the discussion here on -vote. Marc -- liw weasel, I don't know, *some* of us had several years of complicated sex experience before we got tired of it weasel liw: that's when you became a DD? :) liw weasel, nah, that's when I had sex removed from debian pgpYnxGROiqEF.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG
On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 10:10:11AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote: On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 04:12:09PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 01:34:45AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote: On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 01:08:36PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: I'm willing to debate whatever you want to debate about the GFDL, but not with insults and shouting. no, the truth is, you're not. you're blinkered and inflexible and determined to twist every little thing until anyone reasonable just gives up. That's simply not true. You may have discussed this with other people in the past, but not with me. You have sent me all of two mails that were full of insult, none of which contained anything which could pursuade me into buying your argument. you'll have to excuse me if i see all you faceless drones who parrot the exact same mindless lies as interchangeable Zealot Propaganda Units. with one of you, as with all, there's no point in engaging in debate or any kind of civilised discourse. no, the truth is, you're blinkered and inflexible and determined to twist every little thing until anyone reasonable just gives up. it's really not worth the bother of debating with extremist nutcases, you just go around and around in circles over the same ground. and you can't win. no matter what points you make, you jerks will just ignore them and THEN CONTINUE WITH THE SAME OLD LIES, NO MATTER HOW OFTEN OR HOW RECENTLY THEY HAVE BEEN DISCREDITED. and when that isn't working, or perhaps just for variety, you lot throw in all sorts of stupid non-sequitirs and tangents to distract and side-track any argument so that it gets bogged down in irrelevancies. for months. or years. and again and again and again.[1] -- 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/ [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/01/msg00316.html for those playing along at home and not catching the irony signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG
On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 06:13:14PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: no, the truth is, you're blinkered and inflexible and determined to twist [...] oh look, it's yet another wind up doll - how cute. how long did it take to train you? can you do other tricks? there does seem to be a lot of these windup dolls in here...maybe you're all under the misapprehension that it's in some way clever to quote someone's words back at them. or maybe you're all irony-challenged americans and think that that constitutes irony. craig -- craig sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] (part time cyborg) -- 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] I wish to thank everybody who will support this amendment, especially I wish to thank those who second it. I wish to thank also the members of the Debian mailing list at lists.uni-sofia.bg, who assisted me with the text. Anton Zinoviev --- GNU Free Documentation License protects the freedom, it is compatible with Debian Free Software Guidelines ~~ [...remained deleted for brevity...] i second this amendment. it makes perfect sense. this whole stupid mess about the GFDL allegedly being a problem was cooked up by a bunch of extremist nutcases who want to force the Free Software Foundation to do their bidding, no matter how idiotic. these nutcases have been misusing the debian organisation in this and similarly moronic ways for years. it's time to tell them where to go and to stop turning debian into a bad joke. craig -- craig sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] (part time cyborg) signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 02:29:38AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 01:45:40AM +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote: (2) The Invariant Sections - Main Objection Against GFDL [...] This argument has been brought up a number of times already, but it does not hold. no, it holds perfectly well. the trouble is that nutcases aren't in the least bit swayed by reason or logic - they have their own bizarre and psychotic mis-interpretation of reality and nothing, NOTHING, is ever going to sway them from it. You must either include a machine-readable Transparent copy ALONG with each Opaque copy, 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. Consequently the license requires distribution of the transparent form ALONG with each opaque copy but not IN OR WITH each opaque copy. 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. That would indeed seem to be the intent of that section, but it is not what is written. It says that you *must* either include a Transparent copy along with each opaque copy (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. As written, it is not enough to point the recipient to an available copy that they can take if they want to; you must either include it, or maintain a website. bullshit! it says nothing of the kind. as usual, you extremist nutcases have no hesitation about lying if it will further your moronic agenda. it says that, along with an opaque copy, you must include EITHER a transparent copy or state the publicly accessible computer network location where the user can obtain a transparent copy. it says NOTHING AT ALL that could even remotely be interpreted as saying you must operate or maintain that site yourself. all it says is that you have to refer users to it. and even if it did - so what? it's hardly an onerous or unreasonable clause, nor does it in any way restrict freedom. Not everyone has the ability to do that. If I print out a copy of a manual that I wish to give to a friend, then I do not want to be forced to write him a CD-ROM, too; and I'm not sure that I want to maintain a copy on my webspace, either (in my particular case that shouldn't be a problem, but I can imagine that not everyone has multiple gigabytes of diskspace on their webserver) i'll say it again, and maybe it will sink in (a probably forlon hope): 1. you don't have to, you just need to give a URL. 2. even if you did, it doesn't impinge on freedom [...] (4) Digital Rights Management [...] In fact, the license says only this: You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute This clause disallows the distribution or storage of copies on DRM-protected media only if a result of that action will be that the reading or further copying of the copies is obstructed or controlled. It is not supposed to refer the use of encryption or file access control on your own copy. No; however, as written it can be interpreted as such. only by a nutcase with an agenda. normal people (including lawyers and judges) wouldn't have such an insane and insupportable interpretation. that's because normal people rely on facts. and evidence. they don't just make up whatever crap they need to suit their argument. We all agree that this is a bug in the license, but agreeing on that does not mean that there is no problem. not everyone agrees with your loony misinterpretation. at worst it's a minor bug - it could use some clarification (mostly to shut up lunatics with bizarro-world interpretations), but it's nowhere near a show-stopper bug. [ remainder of your tripe deleted ] i've had enough. i couldn't be bothered going through the rest of your post and pointing out the inevitable flaws and idiocies. there's no point, anyway - like all extremist nutcases you are fixed in your opinion and no amount of logic or even the real world smacking you in the face with harsh reality will ever change it. i really don't know why i even bothered responding this time. i've wasted more than enough of my time on others like you in the past with nothing to show for it but an increasing disillusionment and disgust with the debian organisation and the extremist vermin who infest it. it's why i do little or nothing for debian any more, and am unlikely to do so
Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG
On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 12:09:55AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote: On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 02:29:38AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 01:45:40AM +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote: (2) The Invariant Sections - Main Objection Against GFDL [...] This argument has been brought up a number of times already, but it does not hold. no, it holds perfectly well. the trouble is that nutcases aren't in the least bit swayed by reason or logic - they have their own bizarre and psychotic mis-interpretation of reality and nothing, NOTHING, is ever going to sway them from it. Ah, ad hominem attacks. Wonderful! Really speaks for your ability to get your point across. Of course the argument doesn't hold. Invariant sections cannot be modified, and DFSG3 requires modifiability. EOT. [...] It says that you *must* either include a Transparent copy along with each opaque copy (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. As written, it is not enough to point the recipient to an available copy that they can take if they want to; you must either include it, or maintain a website. bullshit! it says nothing of the kind. as usual, you extremist nutcases have no hesitation about lying if it will further your moronic agenda. I'm not lying. I have an opinion that is different from yours. it says that, along with an opaque copy, you must include EITHER a transparent copy or state the publicly accessible computer network location where the user can obtain a transparent copy. it says NOTHING AT ALL that could even remotely be interpreted as saying you must operate or maintain that site yourself. all it says is that you have to refer users to it. True. However, if you point users to a site that is not under your own control, you basically risk being sued if the person that _does_ control the site decides to take it down. In a literal interpretation of that text, you're right; however, for all practical and legal purposes, you're not. and even if it did - so what? it's hardly an onerous or unreasonable clause, nor does it in any way restrict freedom. I disagree, but as it's not my main problem against the FDL, I don't care either way. [...] i've had enough. i couldn't be bothered going through the rest of your post and pointing out the inevitable flaws and idiocies. there's no point, anyway - like all extremist nutcases you are fixed in your opinion Ditto. -- .../ -/ ---/ .--./ / .--/ .-/ .../ -/ ../ -./ --./ / -.--/ ---/ ..-/ .-./ / -/ ../ --/ ./ / .--/ ../ -/ / / -../ ./ -.-./ ---/ -../ ../ -./ --./ / --/ -.--/ / .../ ../ --./ -./ .-/ -/ ..-/ .-./ ./ .-.-.-/ / --/ ---/ .-./ .../ ./ / ../ .../ / ---/ ..-/ -/ -../ .-/ -/ ./ -../ / -/ ./ -.-./ / -./ ---/ .-../ ---/ --./ -.--/ / .-/ -./ -.--/ .--/ .-/ -.--/ .-.-.-/ / ...-.-/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG
On Sun, Jan 29, 2006 at 05:13:26PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 12:09:55AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote: On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 02:29:38AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 01:45:40AM +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote: (2) The Invariant Sections - Main Objection Against GFDL [...] This argument has been brought up a number of times already, but it does not hold. no, it holds perfectly well. the trouble is that nutcases aren't in the least bit swayed by reason or logic - they have their own bizarre and psychotic mis-interpretation of reality and nothing, NOTHING, is ever going to sway them from it. Ah, ad hominem attacks. only indirectly. the real point, which you missed, was to be an accurate description of reality - something that, as an extremist nutcase, you are challenged by. Of course the argument doesn't hold. Invariant sections cannot be modified, and DFSG3 requires modifiability. EOT. bullshit. as has been pointed out hundreds of times before, there are several other situations where neither the DFSG nor the debian project require modifiability - license texts and copyright notices, for example. you and your ilk may choose to ignore this as a minor detail and pretend that it's irrelevent and no kind of precedent, but that's because you're extremist nutcases highly skilled at ignoring reality when it contradicts your lunatic viewpoint. it doesn't actually change the reality. wishing it weren't so don't make it so. It says that you *must* either include a Transparent copy along with each opaque copy (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. As written, it is not enough to point the recipient to an available copy that they can take if they want to; you must either include it, or maintain a website. bullshit! it says nothing of the kind. as usual, you extremist nutcases have no hesitation about lying if it will further your moronic agenda. I'm not lying. I have an opinion that is different from yours. no, you're lying. you are stating something which is not true, and that you know is not true. the GFDL does not say what you are claiming it does, it does not even imply what you are claiming, yet you claim it anyway because it's a useful shock tactic to demonize the GFDL and support your argument. it says that, along with an opaque copy, you must include EITHER a transparent copy or state the publicly accessible computer network location where the user can obtain a transparent copy. it says NOTHING AT ALL that could even remotely be interpreted as saying you must operate or maintain that site yourself. all it says is that you have to refer users to it. True. However, if you point users to a site that is not under your own control, you basically risk being sued if the person that _does_ control the site decides to take it down. In a literal interpretation of that text, you're right; however, for all practical and legal purposes, you're not. and if a meteorite falls on your head, you can no longer give away copies of GPL source code for binaries you have distributed. since this could happen at any time, you're constantly at risk of being in violation of the GPL. GIVE. IT. A. FUCKING. REST! really! who the hell are you trying to fool? yourself? nobody else is going to be taken in by such a lame risk. craig -- craig sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] (part time cyborg) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG
ma, 2006-01-30 kello 09:24 +1100, Craig Sanders kirjoitti: only indirectly. the real point, which you missed, was to be an accurate description of reality - something that, as an extremist nutcase, you are challenged by. [ further insults deleted ] Craig, could you please behave in a polite manner? Regardless of whether you're right or wrong about your claims about the GFDL, your manner is inappropriate on Debian mailing lists. -- 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 30, 2006 at 02:37:05AM +0200, Lars Wirzenius wrote: ma, 2006-01-30 kello 09:24 +1100, Craig Sanders kirjoitti: only indirectly. the real point, which you missed, was to be an accurate description of reality - something that, as an extremist nutcase, you are challenged by. [ further insults deleted ] Craig, could you please behave in a polite manner? Regardless of whether you're right or wrong about your claims about the GFDL, your manner is inappropriate on Debian mailing lists. i'll behave as i please. if you don't like my words, then don't read them - kill file me if you feel it's necessary. ruining an organisation like debian is a FAR greater crime than mere impoliteness - and when i see extremist nutcases ruining what used to be a great organisation, then i'll express my anger and sadness in whatever manner i see fit. debian used to be great. now it's infested by psycho loonies with an, at best, tenuous grasp on reality - all determined to prove that they're Holier Than Stallman by being as unreasonable and pedantic about trivial crap as they possibly can. fortunately, the debian operating system is still good, even if the org. is screwed - at least until the loonies really get their way and toss out all the documentation for whatever trumped-up frivolous excuse is currently fashionable amongst them. craig -- craig sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] (part time cyborg) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG
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] I wish to thank everybody who will support this amendment, especially I wish to thank those who second it. I second the amendment quoted below. It's my understanding that it fulfills option (A) as described in: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.debian.devel.vote/8148: Cheers, Moritz --- 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
Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG
On Wed, 2006-01-25 at 16:55 -0600, Graham Wilson wrote: On Wed, Jan 25, 2006 at 10:10:22AM +0200, Fabian Fagerholm wrote: Those in favour of two separate GR's: * Read my GR proposal [0] and second it (your choice of course). * Read Nathanael's amendment proposal [1] to my proposal. A DD needs to send it as a reply to my proposal so that it becomes an officially proposed amendment (*). I will second it, and suggest others do too (again, your choice or course). * Send any other amendment proposals as replies to my proposal. I will consider seconding them as well. * After the first GR has been decided, we can consider what to say in the position statement (or choose to say nothing). (*) Can I do that without cancelling my original proposal? I'm not sure. I don't believe there is any issue with that. Or, at least, I don't see why one person can't make an amendment to there own proposal and want it as a seperate choice one the ballot. That would seem sensible, and I think the constitution allows for this. In any case, since Nathanael has withdrawn his amendment proposal with additional concerns, I won't propose it. Thanks, -- 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 09:45 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: I think I was partially responding to aj's question about why we need it to be two separate GR's. At this point, we can have either 2 GR's -- one for deciding on the status of GFDL licensed works, with or without invariant sections, and a second one for position statements --- or conflate them. Those in favour of two separate GR's: * Read my GR proposal [0] and second it (your choice of course). * Read Nathanael's amendment proposal [1] to my proposal. A DD needs to send it as a reply to my proposal so that it becomes an officially proposed amendment (*). I will second it, and suggest others do too (again, your choice or course). * Send any other amendment proposals as replies to my proposal. I will consider seconding them as well. * After the first GR has been decided, we can consider what to say in the position statement (or choose to say nothing). (*) Can I do that without cancelling my original proposal? I'm not sure. Those in favour of a single GR regarding both the freeness of GNU FDL and a public statement about it: * Read Manoj's list of possible combinations [3]. * Rework my proposal [0] into alternative B and propose it as an amendment. I will second it. I will consider doing this myself later if there is not enough support for two separate GRs. * Propose amendments for alternatives A, C and F in Manoj's list. I will consider seconding them. [0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/01/msg00209.html [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/01/msg00254.html [3] http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/01/msg00173.html Finally, a reminder: Proposing a GR or an amendment, or seconding an amendment, is not the same as stating your opinion. Your opinion will be asked for when it's time to vote. At this time, the question is about having the right options on the ballot, even options that very few or nobody on this list speak for. Why? Because even if nobody likes it now, there might be a time in the future, perhaps when we have all retired from Debian, that someone asks why that option wasn't considered. Having all these options on the ballot will show that we explicitly chose option X over all the other options. If the Debian of the future wants to open up that issue again, then let it be because they really want to revisit the core issue -- not because of a technicality such as a missing option. 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 16:05 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 10:09:53PM +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote: The following is my reasoning (and similar for control). Progress or accomplishment means that the process that is being hindered or prevented has already started. Hence you can not obstruct the reading if the process of reading has not started yet. When the permission bit for reading is not set then the reading can not start. You must be an aspiring lawyer, because this attempt to twist common English words is stupid. That, or you need to look up the meaning of prevent as well; sorry, I'm having a hard time guessing whether there's a language barrier here, or you're being deliberately perverse. Your argument is equivalent to saying that since the police failed to stop you, there was no arrest, and therefore you were not resisting arrest. The problem is that the GNU FDL doesn't do what its authors wanted it to do when it comes to DRM. Anton wants to explain what the GNU FDL is supposed to do, while Steve and Frank point out that it doesn't do it well in most places, and doesn't do it at all in other places. Before we cross the line where we no longer debate the issue and where we reduce all arguments to personal insults, could we please stop? Remember that with email, it's easy to make mistakes that are less common elsewhere. Interpreting too literally. Anxiety due to the fact that what you said will be recorded for a long time in the archives -- have to get it right the first time. Perhaps worst of all, to forget that the small compensations of body language when you have to tell someone you disagree are missing from the email. You have to spell them out. I suggest a break from this discussion. Go and do something fun today, and return another time to read the message [0] I sent before this one with suggestions on how to move forward from here. [0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/01/msg00280.html -- Fabian Fagerholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG
El martes, 24 de enero de 2006 a las 14:32:39 +0200, Anton Zinoviev escribía: You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute The permissions are clearly a technical measure. They clearly obstruct and control the reading or further copying of that copy. No, they can not. They can not control something that doesn't exist. They obstruct the reading. -- Jacobo Tarrío | http://jacobo.tarrio.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG
On Wed, Jan 25, 2006 at 10:10:22AM +0200, Fabian Fagerholm wrote: Those in favour of two separate GR's: * Read my GR proposal [0] and second it (your choice of course). * Read Nathanael's amendment proposal [1] to my proposal. A DD needs to send it as a reply to my proposal so that it becomes an officially proposed amendment (*). I will second it, and suggest others do too (again, your choice or course). * Send any other amendment proposals as replies to my proposal. I will consider seconding them as well. * After the first GR has been decided, we can consider what to say in the position statement (or choose to say nothing). (*) Can I do that without cancelling my original proposal? I'm not sure. I don't believe there is any issue with that. Or, at least, I don't see why one person can't make an amendment to there own proposal and want it as a seperate choice one the ballot. -- gram -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG
On Mon, 2006-01-23 at 17:39 -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote: 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. A valid point, but at least the three problems you list don't seem sufficiently problematic. 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 This is hardly impossible, or even difficult. We still retain sources for Woody, released in 2002. The arrangement to no longer serve the binaries is trivial. That said, this is of course a decision for individuals working on the archive and mirrors. (Also, I suspect having the source available in one location would satisfy GNU FDL, section 3, paragraph 3, which is where this claim seems to come from.) - Debian CD vendors must either ship source CDs to all customers regardless of whether a customer wants them, or maintain their own download mirrors. I don't see how GNU FDL, section 3, paragraph 3, amounts to CD vendors having to maintain their own mirrors. If Debian already retains source for a year, then reasonably prudent steps on their part would be to point the customer to the Debian mirror network and cease distribution when Debian does so. Of course, they may choose to distribute for a longer time than Debian, but that would mean they have to make the arrangements anyway. - Neither Debian, nor the mirror network, nor the users, can use rsync-over-ssh to update their CD images or individual packages. Do you think section 2 of the GNU FDL leads to this? That's where the so-called DRM clause is located, which states: You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute. I really have a hard time answering the following questions now: How does rsync-over-ssh obstruct or control the reading of a document? Are you suggesting it has to be readable in transit? How does rsync-over-ssh obstruct or control the further copying of a document? Unless I'm mistaken, the copy will be identical to the original, and rsync-over-ssh cannot alter the document so that it is impossible to copy again. In fact, consider this part of section 3, paragraph 3: ... you must either include a machine-readable Transparent copy along with each Opaque copy, 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. Since rsync-over-ssh is a public-standard network protocol, and since rsync-over-ssh URLs are computer-network locations from which the general network-using public has access to download given you tell the user the password or use no authentication, the requirement for distributing opaque copies (source) could be fulfilled by providing rsync-over-ssh access to anyone that the distributor is obliged to provide opaque copies to. 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. I would suggest supporting the GR on this issue, by seconding my proposal and/or making an amendment. -- Fabian Fagerholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG
Peter Samuelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [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. If you propose this as an amendment or alternative text, I'd second it (especially if the text uses comply and may comply equally). Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich Debian Developer (teTeX)
Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG
Steve Langasek wrote: Wow, you think it's prudent to rely on an external organization with whom you do not have a contract for your compliance with a license? Most businesses would *not*, and I doubt most judges would either. Aren't those same organizations relying on us to, say, not attempt to distribute Oracle as a .deb in main? -- David N. Welton - http://www.dedasys.com/davidw/ Linux, Open Source Consulting - http://www.dedasys.com/ -- 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 11:49:04PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: The overall subject can be software freedom but not necesarily in all cases and certainly not in the case with the man-page. One can not use simple quantity calculations in order to determine what the overall subject of a book is. I think you'll find you'll have a hard time convincing anyone that a text that consists for 90% of a secondary section about free software and for 10% of technical documentation that the overall subject of that text is something technical. I gave two examples. I have a book with poetry but the total length of its prefaces is more than the total length of all poems. I have also a book containing relatively short medieval story and a very long preface. Can we stick to technical documentation? These examples show that my opinion about overall subject can be confirmed by a more authoritative source, namely the libraries. Now, if you think that there is a difference with respect to overall subject between my examples and a short technical documentation with long non-technical prefaces and apendixes, then you have to give argumentation. BTW, I chose these examples because these are books I realy have, not because I can not imagine technical book that proves the same. Still isn't relevant. If you have three very short manpages, or six very short manpages, and then one copy of each of the invariant sections, and the cumulative length of the invariant sections ends up being larger than the cumulative length of the manpages, the question will arise what the overall subject is. Well, if you ask the people that use this man-page they will tell. but the question is why we shouldn't accept [the unmodifiable sections]? What basic freedoms of our users we will protect by doing so? The freedom to modify the text as they see fit. With respect to that freedom GPL is also non-free. Note that you even have the freedom to take a license text and modify it, including any preamble such a license text might have. Not exactly. The BSD-alike licenses allow you do this but other licenses state that everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed. If they think that something is a free license we have to agree acording to our social contract (we will be guided by the needs of our users and the free software community). To be guided by does not imply to blindly follow whatever they say, without having our own opinion. No, it doesn't but in that case there must exist more solid argumentation than just we don't agree becase we don't want to. Moreover, our definition of Freedom is laid out in the Debian Free Software Guidelines. And DFSG gives us no advise with respect to invariant sections. I do not want to write same things two times for you and Antony Towns so I will give the answer in a separate thread. Please respond there. The relevance of GNU's four basic freedoms is absolutely zero in a Debian context. DFSG are not definitive about the invariant sections (see the separate thread) so we need another principle to help us decide. But regardless of that, the relevance of GNU's four basic freedoms is not zero in a Debian context. At least some of our developers do not help Debian just because it is fun. They do this because by protecting the users freedoms they are doing the right thing. It is wonderful to protect human rights like the free speech but we are programmers and that is our way. I'm not entirely sure I understand you correctly here, so, just for clarity: are you saying that everyone agrees that the third item of the DFSG does not require arbitrary modifications? Yes, that is what I am saying. I will write more in the separate thread I promised. If so, then I would submit that you're wrong. I, for one, understand that section to mean exactly that: it does require arbitrary modifications. You already agreed that section does not mean exactly that in your message on Mon, 23 Jan 2006 10:28:18 +0100. Citing: That, I can agree with. So let's do that: let's see at what restrictions are imposed, and whether they would allow me all we agree that some restrictions are admissible. What makes the invariant sections not admisible? It imposes a burden on some very useful types of modification, and makes others legally impossible. It does not make the useful types of modification impossible. I already demonstrated why we don't have to put all invariant sections and the full text of GFDL in every single GFDL-covered man-page. Acording to the licenses this is the choice here: GPL: include CD-ROM or obligate myself to distribute the sources at minimal cost for three years GFDL: include CD-ROM or maintain a website for one year First, the GPL says reasonable, not minimal. I don't understand this. reasonable means you're allowed
Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 12:42:27AM +1300, Anthony Towns wrote: 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... ;) I do not call my fellow developers naive because they do not think this. In order to not write twice same thing, both to you and to Wouter Verhelst, I will elaborate in a separate thread. It is a fact confirmed by Richard Stallman, author of GFDL, Cite, please. I sent Richard Stallman a draft of my proposal where this paragraph contained the words it is our belief that. The responce by Stallman was You can state that as more than just your belief. It's a fact. Anton Zinoviev -- 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 07:59:44PM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote: 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. They certainly believe the documentation should be free. 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. Maybe they just don't care about your personal opinion what free software means. ;-) You must either include a machine-readable Transparent copy ALONG WITH each Opaque copy Yeah, along with means with. In my dictionary along is explained as in company, in addition (the other meanings of along are not applicable). So the license says include a machine-readable Transparent copy in addition with each Opaque copy. If you include the transparent copy in the web-server in addition to the opaque copy, then you are in comply with the requirements of GFDL. 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. A complete Transparent copy of the Document, free of added material clearly means that the transparent copy has to be free of added material, not the CD image. For at least a year after you take down the binary CD images from your site. Only if the the transparent copy is not along with the opaque copy. On Debian servers the transparent copy is always along with the opaque copy so there is no need to keep any images for a year. 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. I would agree with you but the license doesn't require this burden. 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? He said this when I asked him to comment the draft of my proposal. It is easy to ask him to confirm that publicly but I don't think this is necessary because this follows from the most natural interpretation of the preposition along with. 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. Do you believe that someone not connected with Debian interprets the lincense in this peculiar way? The obvious interpretaion allows us to place the transparent copy along with the opaque copy on a web server and to distribute them separately without the one-year requirement. Anton Zinoviev -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 10:05:12AM +0100, David N. Welton wrote: Steve Langasek wrote: Wow, you think it's prudent to rely on an external organization with whom you do not have a contract for your compliance with a license? Most businesses would *not*, and I doubt most judges would either. Aren't those same organizations relying on us to, say, not attempt to distribute Oracle as a .deb in main? Are you telling me you don't see any difference between trusting Debian to fulfill *our* obligations under copyright law and relying on us for the fulfillment of *their* obligations? -- 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: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG
[Frank Küster] - 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. If you propose this as an amendment or alternative text, I'd second it (especially if the text uses comply and may comply equally). I'd love to but I'm not a Debian developer. Peter signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 05:39:07PM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote: 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 The license does not require this because on all our mirrors the transparent copy is always along with the opaque copy. - Debian CD vendors must either ship source CDs to all customers regardless of whether a customer wants them, or maintain their own download mirrors. Do you know how many Debian CD vendors ship the binary CDs together with written offer valid for at least three years, to give any _third party_, for a charge _no more_ than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code. For the CD vendors the requirement of GPL can be even more impractical than the requirement of GFDL and as a result they always ship the source CDs. - Neither Debian, nor the mirror network, nor the users, can use rsync-over-ssh to update their CD images or individual packages. You can use any way to update the CD images or individual packages because by doing so you are not controlling the reading and furthure copying. Everybody who receives the data is free to read and copy it. If I do not give you access to read some file then I am controlling you, not your reading - there exists no reading I can control. I would be controlling your reading if the copy I gave to you was protected in such a way that you could read it today but not tomorow. Anton Zinoviev -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG
On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 00:53 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: Yes, and under this license we would still have to keep those sources around for a year *after* we stop distributing woody in binary form. And provide for backups network reliability, since losing our copy would leave us in violation of the license. Given that archive space has been a big issue for us over the past year, I don't see how you can assume this is trivial. As I said, making the source available from a single location would probably satisfy the requirement. For instance, promoting snapshot.debian.net to official status and devoting some resources to ensuring its reliability would help satisfy the requirement while providing many other benefits at the same time. Wow, you think it's prudent to rely on an external organization with whom you do not have a contract for your compliance with a license? Most businesses would *not*, and I doubt most judges would either. The reasonably prudent steps refer to the requirement to ... ensure that this Transparent copy will remain thus accessible at the stated location until at least one year after the last time you distribute Such steps could be, for example, to donate money to Debian via SPI, earmarked something like for the support of Debian archive infrastructure, to ensure source is always available. In the event Debian removes the source in violation of the license, then reasonably prudent steps would be for the CD vendor to set up a source mirror instead. I suspect most CD vendors do not keep a complete source mirror of the GNU FDL material they sell on their CDs (Debian or otherwise). Cheers, -- Fabian Fagerholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG
On Sunday 22 January 2006 16:45, Anton Zinoviev wrote: In fact, the license says only this: You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute Did any of you actually *read* this? Read it. What it actually *says*, means that storing a copy on a multiuser machine with UNIX permissions set so that it can't be read by everyone is *prohibited*. The permissions are clearly a technical measure. They clearly obstruct and control the reading or further copying of that copy. It is not supposed to refer the use of encryption or file access control on your own copy. And yet it does, clearly, refer to that. This is what we call bad drafting. We have repeatedly asked the FSF to revise the GFDL to fix this drafting error. They have refused. (Note that if it only applied to copies you distribute, it would be fine and free. The problem is that it explicitly applies to copies you make and do not distribute.) When a license clearly says one thing, we do not say Well, it's OK because they probably didn't really mean it. Doing this is OK if we actually have the written, explicit agreement of the copyright holder that s/he didn't really mean it. But it is not a reasonable thing to do for a license applied by many disparate copyright holders, or indeed one where the license author refuses to fix an obvious drafting error. Both are the case for the GFDL. A vote for Anton's GR is a vote to ignore the actual text of licenses entirely when determining DFSG-freeness, in favor of some nebulous guess as to what we think the license is supposed to mean. Trust me, if it passes, I will use the same argument to get xsnow into main, since the author probably didn't intend to restrict modification. -- Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] This space intentionally left blank. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The license is an agreement that regulates one action: the distribution, right? No, unfortunately. Under copyright law, creating private copies, or private modified copies, is one of the exclusive privileges of the copyright holder. You need permission from the copyright holder (or one of the special exemptions such as 'fair use') in order to do so. For a license to be considered DFSG-free, debian-legal believes that it should not restrict anything but distribution. (In fact most of us believe that copyright should restrict nothing but distribution.) However, under the current law in every country I know of, a copyright license can restrict other things, including private copies. (And if you look at the EULA licenses of most proprietary software, they do restrict them.) Is this clause enforcable to your private copies (considering it as a bug)? Yes. or just to the copies you distribute... No. 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. And there's the problem with this clause, in a nutshell. -- Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] Make sure your vote will count. http://www.verifiedvoting.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 06:39:41AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: On Sunday 22 January 2006 16:45, Anton Zinoviev wrote: In fact, the license says only this: You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute Did any of you actually *read* this? Read it. What it actually *says*, means that storing a copy on a multiuser machine with UNIX permissions set so that it can't be read by everyone is *prohibited*. The permissions are clearly a technical measure. Yes, they are. They clearly obstruct and control the reading or further copying of that copy. No, they can not. They can not control something that doesn't exist. If you do chmod -r then I am unable to read the file and there exists no reading to control. If you use some technical measures to make me able to read today but not tomorow a text you gave to me, then you would be controlling the reading. The encrypted file systems and chmod -r do not achieve this. Anton Zinoviev -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG
On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 06:39 -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: Did any of you actually *read* this? Read it. What it actually *says*, means that storing a copy on a multiuser machine with UNIX permissions set so that it can't be read by everyone is *prohibited*. The permissions are clearly a technical measure. They clearly obstruct and control the reading or further copying of that copy. To me, the problem is evident when pulling out the four different combinations of reading, further copying, the copies you make and the copies you distribute. 1: You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading of the copies you make. 2: You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading of the copies you distribute. 3: You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the further copying of the copies you make. 4: You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the further copying of the copies you distribute. Combinations 1 and 3 are the problematic ones, since they restrict what you can do with your own copy and your own copies of your copy. Combinations 2 and 4 concern copies that you have given away to others. The restriction in these cases is quite reasonable, it just means you don't get to decide how the recipient can read or copy the document. In any case, I don't think everyone will agree, and explicitly establishing the freeness of this license by a GR would settle the issue for those who think it is about opinion. Cheers, -- Fabian Fagerholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 06:39:41AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: On Sunday 22 January 2006 16:45, Anton Zinoviev wrote: In fact, the license says only this: You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute Did any of you actually *read* this? Read it. What it actually *says*, means that storing a copy on a multiuser machine with UNIX permissions set so that it can't be read by everyone is *prohibited*. The permissions are clearly a technical measure. Yes, they are. They clearly obstruct and control the reading or further copying of that copy. No, they can not. They can not control something that doesn't exist. If you do chmod -r then I am unable to read the file and there exists no reading to control. Come on. If the directory is world (or just group) readable, there *is* in fact something to read. Simply defining that every copy that cannot be read is not there, and therefore not letting others read it is okay, is just ridiculous. If you use some technical measures to make me able to read today but not tomorow a text you gave to me, then you would be controlling the reading. The encrypted file systems and chmod -r do not achieve this. The clause was explicitly introduced to forbid distribution on a particular type of encrypted file system, namely, Digital-Rights-Management-enabled media. You are wrong. 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 Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 02:02:25PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote: If you do chmod -r then I am unable to read the file and there exists no reading to control. Come on. If the directory is world (or just group) readable, there *is* in fact something to read. Simply defining that every copy that cannot be read is not there, and therefore not letting others read it is okay, is just ridiculous. The copy _is_ there but there exists no reading, so there is nothing to control. I mean there is no reading of the copy, the directory can be read but it is obviously not covered by GFDL. If you use some technical measures to make me able to read today but not tomorow a text you gave to me, then you would be controlling the reading. The encrypted file systems and chmod -r do not achieve this. The clause was explicitly introduced to forbid distribution on a particular type of encrypted file system, namely, Digital-Rights-Management-enabled media. You are wrong. OK. That was just an example. If I give you handheld that allows you to read the Glibc manual only today but not tomorow then I would be in violation of the license. Anton Zinoviev -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 02:02:25PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote: If you do chmod -r then I am unable to read the file and there exists no reading to control. Come on. If the directory is world (or just group) readable, there *is* in fact something to read. Simply defining that every copy that cannot be read is not there, and therefore not letting others read it is okay, is just ridiculous. The copy _is_ there but there exists no reading, so there is nothing to control. I mean there is no reading of the copy, the directory can be read but it is obviously not covered by GFDL. With that reasoning, I would be allowed to make as many copies of my WindowsXP CD's as my CD burner manages before it blows up in smoke, as long as I don't let anybody else read them. I repeat: Claiming that a copy doesn't matter just because you can't read it, and doing this when discussing the specific clause that forbids to obstruct other's reading of the copy, is just ridiculous. If you use some technical measures to make me able to read today but not tomorow a text you gave to me, then you would be controlling the reading. The encrypted file systems and chmod -r do not achieve this. The clause was explicitly introduced to forbid distribution on a particular type of encrypted file system, namely, Digital-Rights-Management-enabled media. You are wrong. OK. That was just an example. If I give you handheld that allows you to read the Glibc manual only today but not tomorow then I would be in violation of the license. Correct, and if you'd give me a handheld with the manual on it, but encrypted so that it's impossible to read it no matter when, you'd be in violation of the license, too. Or if you'd store it in your homedir on a multiuser machine and remove the r bit for others. 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 Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 02:48:20PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote: Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 02:02:25PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote: If you do chmod -r then I am unable to read the file and there exists no reading to control. Come on. If the directory is world (or just group) readable, there *is* in fact something to read. Simply defining that every copy that cannot be read is not there, and therefore not letting others read it is okay, is just ridiculous. The copy _is_ there but there exists no reading, so there is nothing to control. I mean there is no reading of the copy, the directory can be read but it is obviously not covered by GFDL. With that reasoning, I would be allowed to make as many copies of my WindowsXP CD's as my CD burner manages before it blows up in smoke, as long as I don't let anybody else read them. I repeat: Claiming that a copy doesn't matter just because you can't read it, and doing this when discussing the specific clause that forbids to obstruct other's reading of the copy, is just ridiculous. I don't say the copy doesn't matter. I say that there is no process of reading the copy. Do I control your reading of the image on my videomonitor? Maybe I control you, but not your reading, because there is no reading at all. And yet my videomonitor is very real. Anton Zinoviev -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't say the copy doesn't matter. I say that there is no process
of reading the copy. Do I control your reading of the image on my
So you agree that using permission bits is obstructing the reading, as
defined in the GFDL?
From WordNet (r) 2.0 [wn]:
obstruct
v 1: hinder or prevent the progress or accomplishment of; His
brother blocked him at every turn [syn: {blockade}, {block},
{hinder}, {stymie}, {stymy}, {embarrass}]
--
* 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, 23 Jan 2006 18:25:54 +0100, Adeodato Simó [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: * 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... I think I was partially responding to aj's question about why we need it to be two separate GR's. At this point, we can have either 2 GR's -- one for deciding on the status of GFDL licensed works, with or without invariant sections, and a second one for position statements --- or conflate them. manoj -- Tis man's perdition to be safe, when for the truth he ought to die. Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 04:27:25PM +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
So you agree that using permission bits is obstructing the reading, as
defined in the GFDL?
From WordNet (r) 2.0 [wn]:
obstruct
v 1: hinder or prevent the progress or accomplishment of; His
brother blocked him at every turn [syn: {blockade}, {block},
{hinder}, {stymie}, {stymy}, {embarrass}]
The following is my reasoning (and similar for control).
Progress or accomplishment means that the process that is being
hindered or prevented has already started. Hence you can not
obstruct the reading if the process of reading has not started yet.
When the permission bit for reading is not set then the reading can
not start.
Anton Zinoviev
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 12:17:24PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: Well, if you ask the people that use this man-page they will tell. Uh. You'll have to make a choice here: either the text is the entirety of _all_ manpages (in which case you can split off the invariant sections and the FDL text to different manpages, but you have to consider all of them together in order to decide what the overall subject matter is), or the text is one manpage specifically (in which case you cannot split off the invariant sections and the FDL text to different manpages, but you can consider each of them individually in order to decide what the overall subject matter is). I agree, that was confusing. We were talking for a document with short technical contents and long secondary sections. So I imagined a manual distributed in the form of man-pages where the only technical contents is the description of only one single command. Acording to the users the overall subject of that manual will be the description of the command, not the topic of the secondary sections. Most of the users will not read the secondary sections at all. If we talk about a manual describing describe more than one command, then it is easy to make the technical contents more than 50%. Note that you even have the freedom to take a license text and modify it, including any preamble such a license text might have. Not exactly. The BSD-alike licenses allow you do this but other licenses state that everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed. You're referring to the GPL, right? No. That was only a remark that not all licenses allow modifications in their text. No. I meant there that I agree that the actual, practical results of a license restriction are more important than whether or not they happen to be okay according to some DFSG-guideline; but I do still think that DFSG3 requires arbitrary modifications. I don't understand what you mean. GPL does not allow arbitrary modifications. It does not make the useful types of modification impossible. I already demonstrated why we don't have to put all invariant sections and the full text of GFDL in every single GFDL-covered man-page. You failed to do so in a logically and legally sound way. Look at the following two messages from the thread The invariant sections are not forbidden by DFSG in debian-vote: http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/01/msg00262.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/01/msg00267.html I was specifically talking about selling printed copies. OK. Oh well. I guess it's clear you won't agree with me, and I'm fed up with the same rehash of this very same discussion that's been done for years now. It isn't getting us anywhere. I find our discussion very interesting and usefull. I agreed with some of your arguments and it seams to me that you agreed with some of my arguments. Moreover, I think I can create something like a FAQ about GFDL. Without your help and the help of other opponents I won't be able to do this. Definitely, our discussion isn't getting us nowhere and I must thank you. Anton Zinoviev -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG
* Peter Samuelson [Mon, 23 Jan 2006 17:39:07 -0600]: - 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. Isn't this addressed by [1] and its references? [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/01/msg00238.html - Neither Debian, nor the mirror network, nor the users, can use rsync-over-ssh to update their CD images or individual packages. Can't the Debian Project (by means of its Developers doing so) choose to interpret the license in the clearly the 'make or' is not intended literal sense? I mean, this is sooo please waive me. Cheers, -- Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org A hacker does for love what other would not do for money. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 12:17:24PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: With respect to that freedom GPL is also non-free. It is not. See below. Anyone arguing for invariant sections by pointing to license texts has missed all of the prior discussions on this topic, going back years. Given the quantity of discussions around the GFDL topics, it's not too surprising that people would miss parts, but as the topic has been done to death, I suggest merely referring people to those conversations. Mostly found googling for 'site:lists.debian.org debian-legal license texts unmodifiable' and variants: 2001: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/11/msg9.html at [1] 2002: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/12/msg00067.html 2003; http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/10/msg00033.html 2004: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2004/05/msg00370.html 2005: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/04/msg00625.html (removal or modification) This is just more wedging, trying to abuse the fact that Debian allows invariant license texts to squeeze in other invariant stuff. I would suggest anyone engaging in such wedging carefully reevaluate whether what they're doing is really in the best interests of Debian; or whether they're just trying to contrive a way to pound Debian into agreement with the FSF. -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 10:09:53PM +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 04:27:25PM +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
So you agree that using permission bits is obstructing the reading, as
defined in the GFDL?
From WordNet (r) 2.0 [wn]:
obstruct
v 1: hinder or prevent the progress or accomplishment of; His
brother blocked him at every turn [syn: {blockade}, {block},
{hinder}, {stymie}, {stymy}, {embarrass}]
The following is my reasoning (and similar for control).
Progress or accomplishment means that the process that is being
hindered or prevented has already started. Hence you can not
obstruct the reading if the process of reading has not started yet.
When the permission bit for reading is not set then the reading can
not start.
You must be an aspiring lawyer, because this attempt to twist common English
words is stupid. That, or you need to look up the meaning of prevent as
well; sorry, I'm having a hard time guessing whether there's a language
barrier here, or you're being deliberately perverse. Your argument is
equivalent to saying that since the police failed to stop you, there was no
arrest, and therefore you were not resisting arrest.
There's also a nice charge called obstruction of justice, btw, for which
shouting TANJ at the judge is not a defense...
--
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: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 10:10:19PM +0100, Adeodato Sim?? wrote: * Peter Samuelson [Mon, 23 Jan 2006 17:39:07 -0600]: - Neither Debian, nor the mirror network, nor the users, can use rsync-over-ssh to update their CD images or individual packages. Can't the Debian Project (by means of its Developers doing so) choose to interpret the license in the clearly the 'make or' is not intended literal sense? I mean, this is sooo please waive me. Huh? Whether it's intended literally or not is the copyright holder's choice, not Debian's. Cheers, aj signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 11:22:49AM +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote: It is a fact confirmed by Richard Stallman, author of GFDL, Cite, please. I sent Richard Stallman a draft of my proposal where this paragraph contained the words it is our belief that. The responce by Stallman was You can state that as more than just your belief. It's a fact. Second hand testimony isn't really enough. Cheers, aj signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 12:50:57AM -0600, Graham Wilson wrote: 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. That's not the case -- the original proposal specifically talks about the GFDL being unsuitable for main because it violates the DFSG; that it may be unsuitable for other reasons is completely on-topic. The latter two justifications don't go directly to the DFSG, even. Cheers, aj signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG
[Anton Zinoviev] They clearly obstruct and control the reading or further copying of that copy. No, they can not. They can not control something that doesn't exist. I have the root password. If I run 'su', I can read your document. If I don't, I can't. You are now controlling how I can read your document: I have to use 'su', and then either read it as root, copy it as root, or chmod it as root. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
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: 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: 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: 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]
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
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: 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: 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: 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
Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG
Hereby I am proposing an amendment to the GR about GFDL opened by Anthony Towns [Sun, 01 Jan 2006 15:02:04 +1000] I wish to thank everybody who will support this amendment, especially I wish to thank those who second it. I wish to thank also the members of the Debian mailing list at lists.uni-sofia.bg, who assisted me with the text. Anton Zinoviev --- 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
Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG
I second this amendment, quoted in full below: On Sunday 22 January 2006 16:45, 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] I wish to thank everybody who will support this amendment, especially I wish to thank those who second it. I wish to thank also the members of the Debian mailing list at lists.uni-sofia.bg, who assisted me with the text. Anton Zinoviev --- 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
Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG
I will _not_ second this proposal. Moreover, I would like to ask any Debian Developer who's thinking of doing a second to consider what it would imply. Legalese is not programming. See below. On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 01:45:40AM +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote: (2) The Invariant Sections - Main Objection Against GFDL [...] 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. This argument has been brought up a number of times already, but it does not hold. The requirement in the GPL to display warranty or license announcements is not absolute; it specifically states that you must only print such announcements if the program 'normally reads commands interactively when run'. In other words, if you modify the program to do something entirely different in such a way that these license or warranty messages would become problematic, you are allowed to remove them. The primary objection to the invariant sections in the GFDL is precisely that this is not possible; if you would want to synthesize a manual into something small, you would still not be allowed to remove the invariant sections. Worse; since after synthesizing the text the bits that are about the subject matter could end up being smaller than the cumulative amount of invariant sections, it might not even be legally possible to synthesize a manual. Synthesizing info manuals is something that Debian does regularly (or, at least, should do; our policy requires that every binary comes with a manpage, and that info documentation is not sufficient. Extracting the relevant bits from the info manual would be the logical choice to remedy this). 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 ... Again, this analogy does not hold. Advertising clauses only apply to advertising material, not to the software (or the manual) itself; conversely, the requirements in the GFDL regarding invariant sections, acknowledgements and cover texts _do_ apply to the manual itself. Consequently when judging whether some license is free or not, one has to take into account what kind of restrictions are imposed and how these restrictions fit to the Social Contract of Debian: 4. Our priorities are our users and free software This part of the Social Contract does not mean that we should bend the rules of freedom to accomodate for our users. As such, it cannot be an argument as to whether the GFDL is free or not. [...] (3) Transparent copies Another objections against GFDL is that according to GFDL it is not enough to just put a transparent copy of a document alongside with the opaque version when you are distributing it (which is all that you need to do for sources under the GPL, for example). Instead, the GFDL insists that you must somehow include a machine-readable Transparent copy (i.e., not allow the opaque form to be downloaded without the transparent form) or keep the transparent form available for download at a publicly accessible location for one year after
Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG
[Wouter Verhelst] I will _not_ second this proposal. Moreover, I would like to ask any Debian Developer who's thinking of doing a second to consider what it would imply. Seconding doesn't mean voting for. Often someone will second an amendment just to ensure that it gets on the ballot. That probably makes sense in this case, in order to ensure that it is defeated decisively, so that GFDL proponents of the future cannot claim the support of a silent majority of Debian developers. In other words, if this amendment does get on the ballot, the spectre of invariant sections are just fine should go away once and for all. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 12:13:03AM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote: [Wouter Verhelst] I will _not_ second this proposal. Moreover, I would like to ask any Debian Developer who's thinking of doing a second to consider what it would imply. Seconding doesn't mean voting for. I know that. However, I have the that Anton proposed this amendment because he didn't see the arguments against it earlier, and am afraid that many people would feel the same way as he does. I don't think having this on our ballot would be a good thing. That being said, of course if the amendment would make it onto the ballot, then there's nothing I can do about that; but I thought it was necessary to try and prevent that. [...] In other words, if this amendment does get on the ballot, the spectre of invariant sections are just fine should go away once and for all. People who think that way will probably vote for 'Further Discussion' if this option does not make it onto the ballot. That's what that option is for. -- .../ -/ ---/ .--./ / .--/ .-/ .../ -/ ../ -./ --./ / -.--/ ---/ ..-/ .-./ / -/ ../ --/ ./ / .--/ ../ -/ / / -../ ./ -.-./ ---/ -../ ../ -./ --./ / --/ -.--/ / .../ ../ --./ -./ .-/ -/ ..-/ .-./ ./ .-.-.-/ / --/ ---/ .-./ .../ ./ / ../ .../ / ---/ ..-/ -/ -../ .-/ -/ ./ -../ / -/ ./ -.-./ / -./ ---/ .-../ ---/ --./ -.--/ / .-/ -./ -.--/ .--/ .-/ -.--/ .-.-.-/ / ...-.-/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
