for assembling links and data about the relationship and about
the factors that went into our decision:
http://wiki.debian.org/GFDLHistory
It may actually make sense to link to relevant (or just long) threads on
debian-legal.
-Evan
--
Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Debian
+Debian
-ESP
--
Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Debian
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
considered it to be open to parallel distribution, even without an
explicit proviso.
~Evan
--
Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The Debian Project (http://www.debian.org/)
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
to list out everybody, you can just leave people out as you
wish.
I, and other members of the Debian CC Working Group, *don't* think that
that is an onerous burden that makes it practically difficult or even
impossible to exercise DFSG rights.
I disagree.
~Evan
--
Evan Prodromou -- http
reversed with tools readily available
in most programmers' toolset.
It's not run through an obfuscator, nor is it object code or virtual
machine code, nor is it code generated from a higher-level language.
~Evan
--
Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The Debian Project (http://www.debian.org
conversion or character set changes.
I think that, instead of hewing to the line that any transforms on the
code are unacceptable -- clearly unsupportable -- we should probably
deal with this particular case and whether this particular transform is
acceptable.
~Evan
--
Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED
there are some special-purpose JavaScript beautifiers
out there that could give even better formatting.
I don't think that this is a case where the user gets unmodifiable
source.
~Evan
--
Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The Debian Project (http://www.debian.org/)
signature.asc
Description
spyware.
~Evan
--
Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The Debian Project (http://www.debian.org/)
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
have to pay an
additional fee, on top of the first donation, to get the source code,
they should probably be in the clear.
-Evan
--
Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The Debian Project (http://www.debian.org/)
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
prevent some
of the more egregious misuses of a piece of software, but not all.
~Evan
--
Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The Debian Project (http://www.debian.org/)
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/
--
Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The Debian Project (http://www.debian.org/)
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
that it's a parody.
Anyways, I don't see any reason that that license wouldn't be compatible
with the DFSG.
~Evan
--
Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The Debian Project (http://www.debian.org/)
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
to ineffectual smear tactics. I'm sad to see someone who could
be doing useful work for Debian and for Free Software obsessing about
minutiae. I know you can do better.
~Evan
--
Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The Debian Project (http://www.debian.org/)
signature.asc
Description
On Sun, 2006-24-09 at 11:47 -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
If they wanted to prevent license complication why didn't they base
CC3.0 on CC-Scotland's plain and simple English that already allows
parallel distribution, rather than the CC2.5-generic that IIRC doesn't?
'Cause they're not
know that there are some Free Software games that use CC data elements
(interstitial images, music, etc.) I wonder if any also use a game
engine that has been ported to e.g. the PS/2? That's an interesting
thought.
~Evan
--
Evan Prodromou -- http://evan.prodromou.name/
By God! I will accept
as yours gave up so easily and comforted
himself with name-calling.
~Evan
--
Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The Debian Project (http://www.debian.org/)
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
as gracefully
and discreetly as we can.
~Evan
--
Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The Debian Project (http://www.debian.org/)
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Marco d'Itri wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, it prohibits an entire class of derivative works: the ones that
(accurately) credit the author of the original work!
As I said elsewhere: I can release an annotate version of a CC-licensed
novel, but I could be forbidden to accurately
Perspective, and
put by Francesco Poli and Evan Prodromou, I could reasonably ask to be
removed from the authorship credits. However, within the book you could
say, What Evan means here is... and When Evan wrote this book... and
so on.
Don't you feel it's awkward?
I don't care about awkward. I
On Mon, 2006-14-08 at 01:43 -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
As usual, please feel free to forward any of my words to CC. I'm very busy
and probably won't manage to do so myself.
Saying it yourself is a huge benefit.
Reviewing the license, everything we were originally worried about appears
and a better perspective than I do.
In any case, consider pointing cc-licenses subscribers to single
debian-legal messages and/or threads that you think express our concerns
well...
A good idea, but people usually reply better to conversations going on
around them.
~Evan
--
Evan Prodromou [EMAIL
-licenses
I've been trying to convey ideas from Debian, but it really helps if you
can state your ideas in your own voice.
~Evan
--
Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The Debian Project (http://www.debian.org/)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble
--
Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The Debian Project (http://www.debian.org/)
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
this part of GR 2006-01, for the record.)
I'd love to hear some opinions on the matter, and I'd be happy to
collect them and present them to Creative Commons. It's not clear how
long the public comments period is, so there is a time factor here.
~Evan
--
Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED
On Thu, 2006-10-08 at 11:26 -0400, Evan Prodromou wrote:
GR 2006-01 says, in part,
I accidentally quoted a section from an option of the GR that didn't
pass. Sorry about that. I don't think the mistake invalidates the
discussion, but I wanted to point it out.
~Evan
--
Evan Prodromou [EMAIL
Max Brown wrote:
The problem is that there isn't a lawyer here: this is the problem!
You seem to be mistaking the Debian Free Software Guidelines and the
Social Contract as principally legal documents. They are not; they are
moral, technical, and societal documents.
This is a mailing list
parallel
distribution -- both a DRM'd version and modifiable, clear-text
version. They also make specific which kinds of technologies are
covered.
--
Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The Debian Project (http://www.debian.org/)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject
.
After the licenses are released, I'd like to put up a summary of the 3.0
licenses similar to the 2.0 summary. If it's decided that (some)
licenses are compatible with the DFSG, I'd like to make that public.
~Evan
--
Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The Debian Project (http://www.debian.org
Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
quote who=Frank Küster date=Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 08:50:04PM +0100
Thank you for the report; it sounds promising, but on the other hand it
sounds as if talking upstream authors[1] into relicensing their
documentation with a CC license will not be an option for etch.
report for a while, but that's the gist.
~Evan
--
Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The Debian Project (http://www.debian.org/)
this have to do with Debian?
~ESP
--
Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The Debian Project (http://www.debian.org/)
On Tue, 2005-08-11 at 11:03 -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
(Just IMHO, but I think reasonable people would agree.)
Isn't that the definition of your opinion?
~ESP
--
Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The Debian Project (http://www.debian.org/)
own name and contact info somewhere else in the source code and documentation.
~ESP
--
Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The Debian Project (http://www.debian.org/)
On Thu, 2005-18-08 at 12:10 +0100, Ricardo Gladwell wrote:
Could I submit a license for
review just for my own personal interest and even though it is
unlikely said license will ever be used in debian free or non-free?
Please don't.
~Evan
--
Evan Prodromou
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
By God! I
and see what I can do to get these changes effected.
~Evan
--
Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
the OPL is mostly defunct, but are there any ideas about who still has the power to change it? I think the OPL author eventually ended up at Creative Commons...
~Evan
--
Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
On Sat, 2005-11-06 at 19:12 -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
The Initial Developer will be acting as the
maintainer of the Source Code. You must notify the
Initial Developer of any modification which You create
or to which You contribute, [...]
This goes against the Freedom 3 of the
On Sat, 2005-11-06 at 14:09 -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
Debian-legal, a self-appointed group of
various legal, political, an philosophical stripes, is making substantive
policy decisions based on thin air?
Pretty much, yes. The decision-making power eventually lies with
ftp-masters, but AFAIK
interchanges, and I think
we're moving forward nicely. So: don't count out the possibility of
DFSG-compatible CC licenses in the near future.
~Evan
--
Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
believe in are _extremely_ slim.
~Evan
* Most of this stuff wouldn't get into Debian, either, though.
--
Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 12:47:36PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
[...] I would also find non-opensource.org
editions of the BSD and MIT licences.
s/find/prefer/
One thing we can do is that I can amass as many links as I can to the
BSD and MIT licenses, and then hold them up to you one at a time
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 12:12:44PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
About Creative Commons:
I feel this needs a paragraph on CC's decision-making, but
I do not feel qualified to write it.
I have no way of finding that out, and I don't see why it's necessary.
If you can dig up some information, I'll
On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 11:51:56AM -0400, Evan Prodromou wrote:
I got email from Lawrence Lessig this week that their new general
counsel, Mia Garlick, has been reviewing the debian-legal summary and
will have a response for us by 8 April.
So, another update: I got email from LL on Friday. He
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 11:47:27AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary.html
http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary.txt
Would it be possible to put a copy somewhere else while gluck is down?
Argh. Gluck
), so we can't audit this number. I don't see why we have to.
I'm going to modify the cc summary to say many. Can we all agree to many? I know that we have more than 5000 articles and images on Wikitravel alone, and I'd say that's more than enough to call them many.
~Evan
--
Evan Prodromou
it into a
final form sooner rather than later.
~Evan
--
Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
. Barring major objections, I would like to see this
version posted at http://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/ .
~Evan
--
Evan Prodromou
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
, please let me know
now so we all stop wasting our time.
Thanks to everyone who's participated so far. Let's hope this work has
some fruitful results.
~Evan
--
Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
a month ago).
There was some confusion on this question, so I just said there are
many works. It's not really crucial to the summary document to
determine exactly or even approximately how many CC-licensed works there
are, so I think it's OK to just punt on this issue.
Thanks a lot,
~Evan
--
Evan
to request this kind of expense from SPI; advice requested.
I also don't think his participation is a make-or-break thing. It'd be
nice, but not 100% necessary.
~Evan
--
Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
in phone conference if possible,
and consultation for other effort.
I will review the latest summary before 8 April. Should we comment
directly to you or is this list sufficient?
The list is fine.
~Evan
--
Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed
the Creative Commons
licenses by smuggling in a requirement for transparent copy in a
license update.
I think in general I'd prefer we go with the minimal changes necessary
to make the licenses DFSG-free.
~Evan
--
Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description
=
:Author: Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED]
:Date: 18 Mar 2005
:Version: 3
:Contact: debian-legal mailing list debian-legal@lists.debian.org
:Copyright: This document is dedicated by the author to the public
domain.
This document gives
2.0
licenses summary listed.
~Evan
--
Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
focused on particulars. Right now, I think this is going to have to happen in late Jan. I'm running behind on a lot of things. I'm not even sure how we'd set up a debian-legal telecon.
I *will* try to send out a final version of the summary this wknd.
~ESP
--
Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED
not particularly familiar with our mirroring
tools; can mirror operators define a blacklist of packages to ignore
and not redistribute?
~ESP
--
Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
. That's an incorrect assumption.
A program that requires a non-free data file to run -- be it a firmware
blob, a graphics image, or some other beast altogether -- depends on
that file and thus belongs in contrib.
~ESP
--
Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description
.
~ESP
--
Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
On Mon, 2004-11-10 at 20:14 +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Oct 11, Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think it's a question of what dependence means for contrib. If the
driver absolutely _depends_ on using the non-free firmware, it should be
in contrib. If the non-free firmware
FIND NON-FREE FIRMWARE, ABORTING without the firmware,
it's hard to say that it doesn't depend on the firmware. But if the
mainline functionality works without the non-free part, and the
firmware's just needed for extra stuff, then it might be a candidate
for main.
~ESP
--
Evan Prodromou [EMAIL
that it would be worthwhile to make
the policy explicit. At the very least, it would save a lot of
explanation.
~ESP
--
Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
of endeavor.
Ah. I guess you really can't do anything without pursuing _some_ field
of endeavor.
~ESP
--
Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
On 09/22/04 01:57:40, Hendrik Brummermann wrote:
there is a discussion in the German Wikipedia whether the Debian Open
Use Logo http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:Debian_logo.png may be
subjected to the GFDL.
I'm not a lawyer and I don't speak for Debian, but I don't think that
you can
I'm interested in adding cwm to Debian:
http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/doc/cwm.html
It's available under the W3 software license, appended to this message and also
available at this URL:
http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2002/copyright-software-20021231
The license looks OK
Rob Lanphier wrote:
I would really like someone to map one of the cited problems with the
RPSL to a stated requirement in the DFSG.
It's understandably frustrating to come into a debian-legal discussion about a
license without having been on the list for a while, since in fact we don't
Andrew Suffield wrote:
This is a non-issue. It's also silly. There is no infrastructure for
distributing things that aren't machine-readable in Debian.
Well, sometimes we do that T-shirt thing.
We *sell* those :P
/me starts drafting a GR
~ESP
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital
Sean Kellogg wrote:
reading this Draft Summary really set me off.
I'm sincerely sorry about that. Let me point out that I was originally extremely
hostile to most of the objections posited to the Attribution 1.0 license, most
of which are replicated in this draft summary:
Evan Prodromou wrote:
Below is a second version of the summary of the Creative Commons 2.0
licenses.
The summary is also available here:
http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary.txt
http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary.html
~ESP
Florian Weimer wrote:
In software documentation, an original author could require that
changelogs or discussion of differences in design or implementation
(Original Author had it this way; the new version does it this other
way) be removed.
Replacing Evan Prodromou with Original Author would
of a work, and giving clearer
recommendations.
~ESP
---8---
=
debian-legal Summary of Creative Commons 2.0 Licenses
=
:Author: Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED]
:Date: 21 Jul 2004
:Version: 2
Florian Weimer wrote:
How? As MJ said, it's clearly practical to remove the author's
name in places where it would nevertheless be a grievous
restriction.
So you suggest that if someone approaches Debian and asks his name to
be removed, Debian would ignore this request even if it can be
Branden Robinson wrote:
I know it may be a fine point, but I'd contrast that with an emulator
that is free and self-sufficient, but for which there is no DFSG-free
software to run.
A *lot* of old home computer emulators won't be self-sufficient without the
ROM, because the environments
Branden Robinson wrote:
Evan was fishing for support for his position in a recent thread entitled
Visualboy Advance question.[1]. Some other debian-legal people appears to
refer to Humberto Massa, in one message.[2]
To be clear: I was soliciting information, not hustling for votes. No
one
Francesco Poli wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 14:00:47 -0400 Glenn Maynard wrote:
I think there's a fairly significant difference between an emulator
that will load and display an insert ROM image (eg. NES, SNES), and
one that requires a specific non-free image in order to be able to do
Branden Robinson wrote:
I know it may be a fine point, but I'd contrast that with an emulator
that is free and self-sufficient, but for which there is no DFSG-free
software to run.
A *lot* of old home computer emulators won't be self-sufficient without the
ROM, because the environments
-post.
--
Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
On Mon, 2004-07-05 at 19:15, Evan Prodromou wrote:
So, I'd like to write a draft summary for the 6 Creative Commons 2.0
licenses:
So, I've started this summary,
http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary.sxw
(and, yes, I'll convert it to HTML and plain text ASAP), and I've
included
On Tue, 2004-07-06 at 15:47, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-07-06 20:15:25 +0100 Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
included the three main arguments why Attribution 2.0 is non-free
At least in this context, we should say instead that software released
under it alone will not be free
On Tue, 2004-07-06 at 17:18, Evan Prodromou wrote:
Section 4a) allows the author to forbid reference to the user. Section
4b) requires authorship credit.
s/the user/themselves/
~ESP
--
Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Wikitravel (http://wikitravel.org/)
signature.asc
Description
.
We could hand this over to Creative Commons with some suggested changes,
as well as some information about our project and why having works be
DFSG-free is important.
~ESP
--
Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
.
~ESP
--
Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
your packages today?) But saying that a
Debian package Depends on packages that Depends on it is taking a mushy
truism to an absurd technical conclusion.
In closing: I think it's a mistake to leave out Free Software just
because there's not Free Data for that software to work with.
~ESP
--
Evan
create a derivative work, no doubt about that).
OTOH, when you issue the classical
$ ./configure
$ make
commands, you are not performing any creative act.
Do you agree?
I think the point is that a statically-linked program would contain code
from the proprietary library.
~ESP
--
Evan
.
I know it may be a fine point, but I'd contrast that with an emulator
that is free and self-sufficient, but for which there is no DFSG-free
software to run.
~ESP
--
Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
in the first
place? Was it your decision, or did you get advice on the matter from
others? Was it just because the game ROMs are usually non-free, or was
there other software (such as an operating-system ROM) that was
required?
Thanks for your help.
~ESP
--
Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED
scripts, nor is a library
useful without some program that links to it.
But we don't keep those kinds of packages out of main just because there
aren't images, scripts, nor linking programs in main.
~ESP
--
Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed
On Sat, 2004-06-19 at 18:17, Benjamin Cutler wrote:
Perhaps my choice of words was poor, but I think that emulators fall
into their own class of software because they rely on what is generally
commercial, non-free (and honestly, quite probably illegal) software in
order to run, which is
, April
1961 or Atlantic Monthly, December 2018.
~ESP
--
Evan Prodromou
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
NN location and at least as prominent as Reiser's credit? Yeech.
Yeech, yes. Possibly a more appropriate example would be when I
include an Attribution-licensed quote from you (beyond the extent of
fair use) in my book, The Autobiography of Evan Prodromou. Would I
have to change the title
: is that non-free? It may suck, but
is it non-free?
~ESP
--
Evan Prodromou
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
into a black hole. Perhaps you know
NN someone who could actually get something done on this
NN point?...
I can try to bring the subject up on the cc-licenses list again.
~ESP
--
Evan Prodromou
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
as Attribution 2.0,
ShareAlike 1.0, and Attribution-ShareAlike 1.0 and 2.0) for
consideration.
On the Creative Commons side, I'd wonder what opportunity there is to
get Debian's very tardy comments and critiques applied to new versions
of the CC licenses.
~ESP
- --
Evan Prodromou
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-BEGIN
AS == Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
AS Beyond that I'm not personally inclined to analyse a license
AS which is clearly non-free for other reasons; it's
AS time-consuming.
No problem; I'm sure someone else will chime in. Thanks for your help
so far.
~ESP
--
Evan
.
~ESP
--
Evan Prodromou
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
be
useful for Debianistas, especially considering recent dustups around
the GFDL.
~ESP
- --
Evan Prodromou
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFAFp2/ozwefHAKBVERArgeAKCZmM//H7HqS7769588FExpqaNabACgjAJn
K8nBbIiU3GhtilnYFRmNR88=
=c+J4
-END PGP
be
useful for Debianistas, especially considering recent dustups around
the GFDL.
~ESP
P.S. I sent a copy of this email from my @d.o account, but that's
super-busted, so I figured I'd try again from one that works.
- --
Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Wikitravel - http://www.wikitravel.org
96 matches
Mail list logo
