Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Glenn Maynard wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 09:31:04PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>>> So the GR promotes a "do what I mean, not what I say" approach to
>>> license interpretation for the GFDL -- it does *not* claim that the
>>> literal reading of the DRM restrictio
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Mar 16, 2006 at 04:58:06PM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
>> Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > If a GR says something is Free, then it must be saying that either
>> > 1: "the work is distributable", or 2: "distributability is not
>> >
On Thu, Mar 16, 2006 at 04:58:06PM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
> Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > If a GR says something is Free, then it must be saying that either 1:
> > "the work is distributable", or 2: "distributability is not relevant
> > to freeness". A GR that calls a work
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If a GR says something is Free, then it must be saying that either 1:
> "the work is distributable", or 2: "distributability is not relevant
> to freeness". A GR that calls a work Free is not orthogonal to
> distributability; it's intrinsically tied to
On Thu, Mar 16, 2006 at 04:16:07PM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
> For the purposes of this discussion, I'm agnostic on that issue (even
> though I happen to agree), because it isn't really the point. The fact
> is, according to the GR, the official debian position is that you (and
> I) are wrong.
On Thu, Mar 16, 2006 at 04:04:37PM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
> Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Thu, Mar 16, 2006 at 08:17:25AM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
>
> >> But the issue of whether or not they're distributable at all is
> >> absolutely orthogonal to the GR. They have no
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Mar 16, 2006 at 08:14:25AM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
>> The GR says "For the sake of the DFSG, we're going to behave as if
>> our generous interpretation of the GFDL is the correct one."
>
> It's not a "generous interpretation", it's a plainly
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Mar 16, 2006 at 08:17:25AM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
>> But the issue of whether or not they're distributable at all is
>> absolutely orthogonal to the GR. They have no bearing on each other
>> whatsoever.
>
> A work can't possibly ever be "f
On Thu, Mar 16, 2006 at 08:14:25AM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
> The GR says "For the sake of the DFSG, we're going to behave as if our
> generous interpretation of the GFDL is the correct one."
It's not a "generous interpretation", it's a plainly false one. According
to your reading, the GR say
On Thu, Mar 16, 2006 at 08:17:25AM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
> But the issue of whether or not they're distributable at all is
> absolutely orthogonal to the GR. They have no bearing on each other
> whatsoever.
A work can't possibly ever be "free" if it's not even distributable.
This is plain
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think it would be Debian in the GFDL case, because the copies stored on
> ftpmaster are rendered inaccessible to the general public, by means of
> technical measures. Only the copies of those copies on the mirrors are
> accessible.
>
> Actually, I'
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But GRs don't get to say what licenses mean. Are you saying that the
> GR is saying: "even though the license says we can't do this, we're
> going to pretend otherwise, deliberately violate the license and hope
> for the best"?
We don't get to say what
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I still think such a philosophy is an invitation to get in legal
> trouble, but it seems to be the preferred choice of the developers.
> At least Debian still believes in removing stuff without free licenses
> from Debian if the licensors decide to ac
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 09:31:04PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>> So the GR promotes a "do what I mean, not what I say" approach to
>> license interpretation for the GFDL -- it does *not* claim that the
>> literal reading of the DRM restriction is free.
>
> But GRs don't
On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 09:31:04PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> So the GR promotes a "do what I mean, not what I say" approach to
> license interpretation for the GFDL -- it does *not* claim that the
> literal reading of the DRM restriction is free.
But GRs don't get to say what licenses mean.
In response to a private mail from Hamish Moffatt, I realized that I did
not make clear my reasoning for some of the things I said in the recent
message "Re: Antique RC bugs (many about licensing)".
Why I read the GR as promoting a "do what I mean" philosophy:
The GFDL says: "You may not use tech
16 matches
Mail list logo
