On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 10:39:02PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
There have been efforts in the U.S. to undo the effects of _Feist_
through legislation. One example is the Collections of Information
Antipiracy Act[1]. (I don't think that bill passed.)
Lobbyists apparently tried to get it
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 07:33:41PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Now, translating this back to the sunrpc case:
But that means you can't distribute the end product under the terms of
the GPL, which include (in part 2) the ability to make modifications
only taking into account a few random
Josselin Mouette wrote:
Do you realize you are reasoning just like the proprietary software
folks the FDL is supposedly meant to fight ?
There is a basic difference between free software foundation folks and
proprietary software folks. But both try to use practical and ethical
reasoning. As
[ Take #2; hoping to hit -legal this time, as my first attempt to
reply somehow ended up on -devel. Caffeine underrun, probably. ]
* Branden Robinson
Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2
Please mark with an X the item that most closely approximates your
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Jacobo Tarrio wrote:
drawn to the condition You may not use technical measures to obstruct
or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or
distribute.
If make or were stricken, and perhaps some clarification added to
ensure that secure transport
On Sun, 24 Aug 2003, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le dim 24/08/2003 ? 14:57, Sergey V. Spiridonov a ?crit :
BTW, I understand, FDL with invariant section infringements freedoms of
the distributor, as Debian. Distributor is the last instance where the
software package can be modified before it will
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 10:39:02PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
Over in Europe, you can copyright a database of obvious facts, even if
it isn't organized in a clever fashion. This is regarded as
breathtakingly obvious by the Europeans on this list who are well up on
EU copyright law, and
On Mon, 2003-08-25 at 01:28, Fedor Zuev wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2003, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le dim 24/08/2003 ? 14:57, Sergey V. Spiridonov a ?crit :
BTW, I understand, FDL with invariant section infringements freedoms of
the distributor, as Debian. Distributor is the last instance where
On Mon, 2003-08-25 at 01:38, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
Josselin Mouette wrote:
Do you realize you are reasoning just like the proprietary software
folks the FDL is supposedly meant to fight ?
There is a basic difference between free software foundation folks and
proprietary software
On Sun, 24 Aug 2003, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
On Sun, 2003-08-24 at 13:37, Fedor Zuev wrote:
On Sat, 23 Aug 2003, Matthew Garrett wrote:
This still fails - as a result of the use of invariant sections, I
am unable to use content from one piece of documentation in another
piece of documentation
* Branden Robinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030824 23:35]:
On Sat, Aug 23, 2003 at 06:50:19PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
I'm personally concerned about this particular phrase, as it seems to
preclude Debian from distributing software with Sun RPC in it unless
Debian itself is developing the
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Fedor Zuev wrote:
Documentation in not a software. There is no any one-way
transformation from the source to the binary.
In many cases, such as TeX source to pdf, there's a one way
transformation with loss of information. (Comments are lost, internal
reference names are
Quoting Dylan Thurston [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
etc/emacs.1:under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version
1.1
...
Requesting removal of GNU Emacs manpages now? Better move Emacs to
non-free.
Not too mention all the clearly non-free cruft under etc/ (including
various essays,
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Andreas Barth wrote:
So, this license is specific to be used only as part of a product or
programm.
You're missing the key phrase on which Branden's argument (and mine)
is based on: 'developed by the user'
This phrase read conservatively (eg. reserving the rights not
On Sun, 24 Aug 2003, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le dim 24/08/2003 ? 21:44, Fedor Zuev a ?crit :
If people disagree with what you say, you should not prohibit them
from doing so. You're still a well-known person who can reasonably
assume that what you write or say will not go unnoticed. Even if
On Mon, 2003-08-25 at 03:18, Jérôme Marant wrote:
Quoting Dylan Thurston [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
etc/emacs.1:under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version
1.1
...
Requesting removal of GNU Emacs manpages now? Better move Emacs to
non-free.
Or take a free version of the
Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Documentation in not a software.
This has been refuted so many times. What about help2man, which turns software
into documentation? What about the numerous other times documentation is
embedded into source code or source code is embedded into documentation?
Quoting Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Mon, 2003-08-25 at 03:18, Jérôme Marant wrote:
Quoting Dylan Thurston [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
etc/emacs.1:under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License,
Version
1.1
...
Requesting removal of GNU Emacs manpages now? Better move
Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But if you take Acrobat, remove, say, the Adobe EULA, and
distribute the rest, it will be censorship or, at least, very
similar. Because you conceal from users the information from
creator, that they reasonable expect to receive from you. Against
the will
Fedor Zuev wrote:
There, IMHO, is a subtle difference between a creating
derivative work, and using a part of work in the completely
unrelated other work. But you, of course, may disagree. I just reply
to the words, and not try to clairvoyant a thoughts.
There may well be. It remains a
Le lun 25/08/2003 à 09:22, Fedor Zuev a écrit :
When you try to apply license outside of its scope you should expect
to receive funny results. GFDL has a very narrow scope. It is bad.
But it is different problem.
No, it is exactly one of the problems. Have you ever read the DFSG?
--
.''`.
Le lun 25/08/2003 à 06:35, Fedor Zuev a écrit :
At the very least, if you can read the document, you always,
technically, can OCR it. An experience shows, that, if you should
not care about legal requirements (because you has the right from
license, you OCR public domain or, simply, you
Le lun 25/08/2003 à 08:38, Sergey V. Spiridonov a écrit :
Josselin Mouette wrote:
Do you realize you are reasoning just like the proprietary software
folks the FDL is supposedly meant to fight ?
There is a basic difference between free software foundation folks and
proprietary software
Le lun 25/08/2003 à 08:28, Fedor Zuev a écrit :
No. Freedom of _distributor_ is not an issue for the free
software _at_ _all_. No written document says that goal of a free
software is to promote freedom of a mere distributors (besides, of
course, the freedom to distribute itself). Free
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 04:22:49PM +0900, Fedor Zuev wrote:
There, IMHO, is a subtle difference between a creating
derivative work, and using a part of work in the completely
unrelated other work. But you, of course, may disagree. I just reply
to the words, and not try to clairvoyant a
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 03:28:28PM +0900, Fedor Zuev wrote:
No. Freedom of _distributor_ is not an issue for the free
software _at_ _all_. No written document says that goal of a free
software is to promote freedom of a mere distributors (besides, of
course, the freedom to distribute
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 04:03:20PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 07:33:41PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Now, translating this back to the sunrpc case:
But that means you can't distribute the end product under the terms of
the GPL, which include (in part 2) the
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 09:06:54AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 10:39:02PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
Over in Europe, you can copyright a database of obvious facts, even if
it isn't organized in a clever fashion. This is regarded as
breathtakingly obvious by
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 10:39:02PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 10:29:40PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 04:12:08PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
I freely admit that this analysis is grounded on U.S.-centric notions of
reverse engineering
O Luns, 25 de Agosto de 2003 ás 13:35:21 +0900, Fedor Zuev escribía:
Documentation in not a software. There is no any one-way
transformation from the source to the binary. All problems with
distribution and modification of documents is a legal, not technical
problems.
That doesn't
O Domingo, 24 de Agosto de 2003 ás 19:36:20 -0500, Joe Wreschnig escribía:
How about the GPL v2? The source code for a work means the preferred
form of the work for making modifications to it; binary or object code
is anything that is not source. I don't see the problem in applying this
On Sun, 2003-08-24 at 17:03, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 11:39:51AM -0700, Jeff Bailey wrote:
We also have essentially the same license with ttf-bitstream-vera.
IMO, that isn't Free Software, either.
There are no practical restrictions on its freedom; I fail to see how
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 01:30:08PM +0200, Jacobo Tarrio wrote:
O Luns, 25 de Agosto de 2003 ás 13:35:21 +0900, Fedor Zuev escribía:
Documentation in not a software. There is no any one-way
transformation from the source to the binary. All problems with
distribution and modification of
Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb/wrote:
The only manpower required should be a clause that allows converting
the document to be under the GPL, much like the clause used in the LGPL.
This would result in the most possible restrictions while still being
GPL compatible.
That would imply
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 06:26:07PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
In any case, your argument for Invariant Sections applies just as well to
programs as it does to manuals!
Would you consider a hypothetical program license to be free if it allowed
'off-topic' text which must be present
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 10:39:02PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
I thought basically every place outside the U.S. was like that. Several
times when the U.S. Supreme Court decision of _Feist v. Rural Telephone
Service Co._ has come up, it's been ridiculed by some Europeans.
Can you
O Luns, 25 de Agosto de 2003 ás 16:23:36 +0300, Richard Braakman escribía:
But to make a new edition with some spelling errors fixed, you
definitely need the source.
Of course.
(I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Are you claiming that
translations and summaries are all you'll
Hello all
I am reading a document by OSDL, namely:
http://www.osdl.org/docs/osdl_eben_moglen_position_paper.pdf
On the third page I read that copyright doesn't limit use of the
product. That the only legal barier to usage of comercial software is
the click trough licence agreement or contracts
Symantec AntiVirus found a virus in an attachment you
(debian-legal@lists.debian.org debian-legal@lists.debian.org) sent to Jane
Morgan.
To ensure the recipient(s) are able to use the files you sent, perform a virus
scan on your computer, clean any infected files, then resend this attachment.
Richard Braakman said:
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 06:26:07PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
In any case, your argument for Invariant Sections applies just as well
to programs as it does to manuals!
Would you consider a hypothetical program license to be free if it
allowed 'off-topic' text
Op ma 25-08-2003, om 16:38 schreef Aigars Mahinovs:
Hello all
I am reading a document by OSDL, namely:
http://www.osdl.org/docs/osdl_eben_moglen_position_paper.pdf
On the third page I read that copyright doesn't limit use of the
product. That the only legal barier to usage of comercial
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 17:06:39 +0200
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is C doing anything illegal in this case?
No, C isn't, but A and B may well be doing illegal things, depending
on the license.
IANAL, though; I could be wrong.
Well, we can take a bunch of A's and B's and hide
Branden Robinson wrote:
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 10:29:40PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Good grief, there are jurisdictions where copyright law follows the
first-finder-is-keeper system used by patents? I'm not sure that free
software can work at all with laws like that.
Do you have a
Several Debian developers have claimed that they are working with the
FSF to make the GFDL DFSG-free and GPL-compatible, specifically:
I think I see two misunderstandings here. Just who has misunderstood,
I cannot tell.
First, as far as I have heard, Debian has not yet voted on the
Nowadays we have to struggle constantly against the tendency to bury
the free software movement and pretend that we advocate open source.
Let those who fight monsters take care lest they themselves become
monsters. - Friedrich Nietzsche
That danger always exists, but it can't
At a cost. While I understand the desire for the invariant sections, it
can be wondered what freedom is most desirable: the freedom to run,
study, redistribute and improve for everyone, or the freedom to run,
study, redistribute and improve for only those that agree with your
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 12:02:56PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 10:39:02PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 10:29:40PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 04:12:08PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
I freely admit that this
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 05:38:38PM +0300, Aigars Mahinovs wrote:
Hello all
I am reading a document by OSDL, namely:
http://www.osdl.org/docs/osdl_eben_moglen_position_paper.pdf
On the third page I read that copyright doesn't limit use of the
product. That the only legal barier to usage of
Aigars Mahinovs wrote:
Hello all
I am reading a document by OSDL, namely:
http://www.osdl.org/docs/osdl_eben_moglen_position_paper.pdf
On the third page I read that copyright doesn't limit use of the
product. That the only legal barier to usage of comercial software is
the click trough
Jacobo Tarrio [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Third: if we were to enumerate each and every right in the license, it
would be much longer and more complex (and imagine if we started combining
the rights you must not limit the recipient's ability to make and
distribute new copies of excerpted
On 2003-08-23 02:33:12 +0100 John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Are you saying that you would be amendable to the idea of a DFSG that
is
slightly modified to make it more applicable to documentation as
well?
I am totally opposed to modifying the DFSG. They are already clearly
applicable
You hold the gun and I'll pull the trigger while wearing a blindfold,
then neither of us will be convicted of murder. Won't work. The law
is not a computer program. There's this thing called intent. And
conspiracy, and guilty as charged, and punitive fines, and
jail ...
If C knows (or has
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Josselin Mouette wrote:
JM the freedom of _users_ and _authors_. It is in the best interest of
JM users to receive unstripped version of manual. It is also in the
JM best interest of authors. Interest of distributor is non-issue.
JMAre you trying to assert point 2 of the
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Matthew Garrett wrote:
When you try to apply license outside of its scope you should expect
to receive funny results. GFDL has a very narrow scope. It is bad.
But it is different problem.
The GFDL may only be intended for documentation and the like, but
if I want to use
On Sun, 24 Aug 2003, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
There a VERY large difference, as black from white, between me deciding
not to repeat certain portions of Mr. Zuev's post[0] and sending people
to intimidate or kill him. The former is known, at least in the free
world, as free speech; the latter as
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le lun 25/08/2003 ? 09:22, Fedor Zuev a ?crit :
When you try to apply license outside of its scope you should expect
to receive funny results. GFDL has a very narrow scope. It is bad.
But it is different problem.
No, it is exactly one of the
On Sun, 24 Aug 2003, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Would you consider a hypothetical program license to be free if it
allowed 'off-topic' text which must be present unmodified in source
and object code of all derived versions, and must be displayed
(perhaps through a command-line option) by every
On Mon, 2003-08-25 at 10:21, Richard Stallman wrote:
Several Debian developers have claimed that they are working with the
FSF to make the GFDL DFSG-free and GPL-compatible, specifically:
I think I see two misunderstandings here. Just who has misunderstood,
I cannot tell.
First,
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Nowadays we have to struggle constantly against the tendency to bury
the free software movement and pretend that we advocate open source.
So I don't think we can conclude that such precautions are no longer
necessary.
It's true that many have gladly
Le lun 25/08/2003 à 17:21, Richard Stallman a écrit :
Several Debian developers have claimed that they are working with the
FSF to make the GFDL DFSG-free and GPL-compatible, specifically:
I think I see two misunderstandings here. Just who has misunderstood,
I cannot tell.
First,
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 05:43:23PM +0200, Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet wrote:
Branden Robinson wrote:
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 10:29:40PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Good grief, there are jurisdictions where copyright law follows the
first-finder-is-keeper system used by patents? I'm not
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Jacobo Tarrio wrote:
What are you trying to rebute from my clause with it? It is more
or less my reasoning: you can translate the book having only a
hardcopy of it. Well, it is even standard practice. If you want to
actually modify it -- well, you may either OCR it, or you
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 00:55:05 +0900 (IRKST)
Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Josselin Mouette wrote:
JM the freedom of _users_ and _authors_. It is in the best interest of
JM users to receive unstripped version of manual. It is also in the
JM best interest of authors.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thursday 21 August 2003 07:09, Branden Robinson wrote:
Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2
Please mark with an X the item that most closely approximates your
opinion. Mark only one.
[ X ] The GNU Free
Josselin Mouette wrote:
GPL doesn't take away freedom. It is a copyleft, full stop. As long as
you respect the copyleft, you are free to do anything you want with the
software. There is no limitation in what you can do, the limitation is
on how you have to do it.
Sorry, but GPL have
Le lun 25/08/2003 à 16:21, Fedor Zuev a écrit :
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le lun 25/08/2003 ? 09:22, Fedor Zuev a ?crit :
When you try to apply license outside of its scope you should expect
to receive funny results. GFDL has a very narrow scope. It is bad.
But it is
On Mon, 2003-08-25 at 14:26, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 09:03:13AM -0400, Joe Drew wrote:
On Sun, 2003-08-24 at 17:03, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 11:39:51AM -0700, Jeff Bailey wrote:
We also have essentially the same license with
Le lun 25/08/2003 à 20:32, Sergey V. Spiridonov a écrit :
Josselin Mouette wrote:
GPL doesn't take away freedom. It is a copyleft, full stop. As long as
you respect the copyleft, you are free to do anything you want with the
software. There is no limitation in what you can do, the
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 04:42:28PM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 10:39:02PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
I thought basically every place outside the U.S. was like that. Several
times when the U.S. Supreme Court decision of _Feist v. Rural Telephone
Service Co._
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 11:57:01PM +0900, Fedor Zuev wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2003, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Would you consider a hypothetical program license to be free if it
allowed 'off-topic' text which must be present unmodified in source
and object code of all derived versions, and must be
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 11:44:25PM +0900, Fedor Zuev wrote:
Please note, that you do not need a special license from me
to include (or even not include) portion of my post in your. But for
manual you expect explicit permission.
This is false. I can legally quote you anywhere I want to,
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 12:48:42PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
Over in Europe, you can copyright a database of obvious facts, even if
it isn't organized in a clever fashion.
You do not copyright a database. You claim database rights on
such a database if you can prove a substantial
Josselin Mouette wrote:
The work being proprietary has nothing to do with the contents of the
work itself, which is just what I stated above. Please don't answer to a
This is irrelevant. I do not really understand, why do you think it is
that important. Do you think that restricting is not
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], John Goerzen wrote:
I didn't post it yet because I'm not yet sure in my own mind what the right
guidelines are. Despite the assertions of some, I do not think that just
accepting GFDL 100% is the right thing to do here.
I see the following scenarios:
1. I'm
On Monday, Aug 25, 2003, at 10:44 US/Eastern, Fedor Zuev wrote:
So, there is no censorship in the world as long as no one
threaten to kill you? Well.
That's not what I said, and even if it were, there are other forms of
coercion, intimidation, etc. besides death threats.
[And
Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
How about a license which allowed off-topic code (say, a 'hangman'
game in the 'ls' program) which must be present unmodified in
source code of all derived versions, and must be invoked (perhaps
through a command-line option) by every derived program?
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 12:48:42PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
[database protection]
Well, regardless of whether it's *called* copyright, it is a copy-right
-- by virtue of the fact that it's an exclusive right granted to the
creator to control the creation of copies of the work.
That's not a
Lack of forced distribution is not censorship. Get a clue, or a
dictionary.
Heh.
Why that ugly, non-free GPL license demand from me to
distribute source code? Source would still be freely available from
the FSF website! Lack of forced distribution do not harm a
freedom!
Fedor Zuev wrote:
Overgeneralization is not always good. Worrying about a
possible problems in the far future instead of problems existed now
in not nessesaryly involve promotion of freedom.
I worry about hypothetical issues now to avoid there being a large
quantity of GFDLed material in
Branden Robinson wrote:
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 11:21:09AM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
Nowadays we have to struggle constantly against the tendency to bury
the free software movement and pretend that we advocate open
source.
Let those who fight monsters take care lest they
From Richard Stallman on the debian-legal list
(http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200308/msg01323.html):
Second, the FSF is not working on changing the GFDL now. We intend to
continue to use invariant sections that cannot be removed, as we have
always done.
This seems to
Now, the World Wide Web exists. And the FSF has its own website.
Anyone who looks at the attribution of any FSF program or manual
can probably find the website. People who have never seen an FSF
program or manual can find the website, too. The website will
always contain the
On Mon, 2003-08-25 at 18:55, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
From Richard Stallman on the debian-legal list
(http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200308/msg01323.html):
Second, the FSF is not working on changing the GFDL now. We intend to
continue to use invariant sections that
On Mon, 2003-08-25 at 20:38, Richard Stallman wrote:
Now, the World Wide Web exists. And the FSF has its own website.
Anyone who looks at the attribution of any FSF program or manual
can probably find the website. People who have never seen an FSF
program or manual can find
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Richard Stallman wrote:
These facts have not prevented the open source movement from quite
effectively covering up what we stand for, and our movement's very
existence. They cannot make any specific person forget, but they
have led most US journalists to deny our
85 matches
Mail list logo
