On Wed, 2003-05-07 at 02:14, Branden Robinson wrote:
Another good argument against the GNU FDL.
Not to mention that publishing known false statements, like claiming it
is a GNU Manual or that the FSF publishes copies, is of dubious
legality.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally
On Thu, May 08, 2003 at 06:07:10AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
As far as I know, we're happy to accept non-free stuff in pristine
.orig.tar.gz's as long as it's not used. If you don't have a pristine
.orig.tar.gz anyway, then it's silly to include unused non-free stuff,
but it's not cause for
On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 01:41:27AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 12:24:56AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
1) You remove the FSF's endorsement of the license which
is the preamble. The Debian Project has no problem with
this; it is certainly an
On Tue, Apr 29, 2003 at 03:30:26PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
Actually, I wonder whether the current application of the GFDL for
GNU manuals is internally consistent at all.
For example, the GNU diffutils manual is licenced with the Front-Cover
Text A GNU Manual. Say now that I'm a FooBSD
Le mer 07/05/2003 à 08:12, Branden Robinson a écrit :
I think before Debian puts anything in main it should remove any
invariant sections from the work, just as we do with non-free source
code. I once had a big old nasty flamewar with the FTP admins that
was tangentially related to this
On Wed, May 07, 2003 at 01:12:27AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
I think before Debian puts anything in main it should remove any
invariant sections from the work, just as we do with non-free source
code. I once had a big old nasty flamewar with the FTP admins that
was tangentially related
On Thu, May 08, 2003 at 06:07:10AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
As far as I know, we're happy to accept non-free stuff in pristine
.orig.tar.gz's as long as it's not used.
Okay, so this is wrong. You're not allowed to include non-free stuff in
anything uploaded to main, .deb, .diff.gz or
On Thu, 08 May 2003, Anthony Towns wrote:
As far as I know, we're happy to accept non-free stuff in pristine
.orig.tar.gz's as long as it's not used.
I'd actually expect apt-get source foo to return sources that are DFSG
free, when foo is in main or contrib.
Granted, you should be checking the
On Sat, 26 Apr 2003, Henning Makholm wrote:
But as we've found out now, the part of the GPL that is actually
invariant is the preamble, which has no legal content...
I've seen this meme popping up in a couple of places.
Can you provide me a reference upon which you are basing this
statement?
On Thu, 01 May 2003, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Sat, 26 Apr 2003, Henning Makholm wrote:
But as we've found out now, the part of the GPL that is actually
invariant is the preamble, which has no legal content...
Can you provide me a reference upon which you are basing this
statement?
I should
On Tue, 2003-04-29 at 15:22, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
^^^
Uhh, I didn't know that the IETF issued RFCs in the future. Perhaps you
meant April 2003?
Might have something to do with [EMAIL PROTECTED],
or the effect of that on me :-D
signature.asc
Description: This is a
Scripsit Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
It's easy to misapply the GNU FDL.
The GNU FDL says that only Secondary Sections (a term it defines)
may be marked Invariant, but does not say what should happen if a
section that is not Secondary is listed as an Invariant Section.
On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 01:50:33AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
RFC 1884 (December 1995)
RFC 2373 (July 1998)
RFC 3515 (August 2003)
^^^
Uhh, I didn't know that the IETF issued RFCs in the future. Perhaps you
meant April 2003?
--
Brian M. Carlson [EMAIL
On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 01:50:33AM -0400,
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 42 lines which said:
RFC authors do it all the time, by issuing updates to existing RFC
documents. They say Do it like this, except for this, this, and this.
No, that's generally only done
On Mon, 2003-04-28 at 06:45, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
Therefore, the IETF is insane often :-)
No argument there.
On Sat, 2003-04-26 at 03:12, Henning Makholm wrote:
The current status of the preamble goes much farther than
that. It says that I must not reuse the wordings in the preamble for
composing a text that expresses *my* views on licensing (and makes
clear that they are mine, not the FSF's).
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, 2003-04-25 at 11:26, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
On one hand, the
benefits to be gained from a free-software-like approach to purely
artistic/aesthetic (i.e., non-functional) works aren't as obvious.
A rather ironic statement in a Bazaar-type
On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 12:33:21PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
RFC authors do it all the time, by issuing updates to existing RFC
documents. They say Do it like this, except for this, this, and this.
This argument would suggest that any unmodifiable, freely-distributable
document is free.
On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 10:49:26PM +0200, Thomas Uwe Gruettmueller wrote:
There's lots of software in non-free that is freely
distributable, but non-free for other reasons, such as
limitations on commercial use. Non- free things should go in
non-free, even if there's a lack of free
What About Unmodifiable Software Licenses Like the GNU GPL?
Strike that text! It's not true. Noting
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifyGPL, let me try:
start new answer
The Free Software Foundation clarifies what it means by ...but changing
[the GPL] is not allowed in
On Fri, 2003-04-25 at 11:26, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
On one hand, the
benefits to be gained from a free-software-like approach to purely
artistic/aesthetic (i.e., non-functional) works aren't as obvious.
A rather ironic statement in a Bazaar-type development of the wording of
a position
On Fri, 2003-04-25 at 22:27, Matthew Palmer wrote:
Except that it's typically a lot easier to work out where a program has been
incompatibly modified (oops, compile error, damn, the API changed) than a
standard has been modified. The use of 'diff' notwithstanding.
Well, when you modify a
On Fri, 2003-04-25 at 22:33, Matthew Palmer wrote:
RFC authors do it all the time, by issuing updates to existing RFC
documents. They say Do it like this, except for this, this, and this.
No, that's generally only done for tiny changes: Adding a bit here or
there, etc.
For large changes, the
On Thu, 2003-04-24 at 12:34, Henning Makholm wrote:
Of course both of these limits are
judgement calls, and each particular Invariant-But-Removable
section will have to be considered on a case-by-case basis.
[Hmmm.. so I think at least, but I'm not sure that this is
a
On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 02:40:29AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
It still contains an invariant section, though it's less severe than the
GFDL type, as it can be removed. I don't believe there's consensus that
invariant sections in general are okay as long as they can be removed,
On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 11:50:45PM +0200, Thomas Uwe Gruettmueller wrote:
Are you aware that there is much software
already in non-free which is freely redistributable but
non-modifiable?
Then leave it there until someone starts complaining about it.
(and then continue leaving it there)
On 24 Apr 2003, Henning Makholm wrote:
Given the GNU Projects influence on Debian, shouldn't the GNU Manifesto
be included in the Debian GNU/Linux Distribution anyway?
I propose expanding this question to:
Why does Debian want to remove (say) the GNU Manifesto from the
manuals?
On Thu, Apr 24, 2003 at 06:20:27PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
instead of a document
like this one that warns about and criticises the FDL, perhaps Debian
should issue a more general statement along the lines of: We have
decided documentation in Debian must comply with the DFSG, and this will
On Fri, 25 Apr 2003, Anthony Towns wrote:
If we are willing to accept invariant chapters in DFSG-free
documentation, I don't see how we could possibly claim the GNU FDL is not
DFSG-free. Merely being able to delete something doesn't make it free --
I can delete MS Office easily enough, eg.
On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 03:00:00PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
The difference between Office and Invariants is (if I understand the licence
correctly) that Invariant sections can't be large chunks of the manual -
only so-called secondary sections.
So, if I make a Debian system that includes
On Fri, 25 Apr 2003 04:57:36 +0200, Thomas Uwe Gruettmueller [EMAIL
PROTECTED] said:
On the other hand, the DFSGly non-free docs that are about to be
thrown out of main are at least as freely distributable as any other
package in main. This is a quality that many packages in non-free do
not
Scripsit Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
If only we could be sure that the license on the manuals would
allow a user who thinks that because! is reason enough for him,
to remove the GNU Manifesto, we probably could still distribute
the unmidified manuals with the
Scripsit Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Anthony Towns wrote:
What About Unmodifiable Software Licenses Like the GNU GPL?
Many software licenses unfortunately disallow the creation ofderivative
works. The FSF give everyone permission to distribute verbatim
copies of the GPL, eg,
Scripsit Joe Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Henning Makholm said:
Perhaps the O.A.C. ought to be our next target, but let us fight one
battle at a time.
EXPN O.A.C.?
Obnoxious Advertising Clause.
--
Henning Makholm However, the fact that the utterance by
On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 02:05:10PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
If only we could be sure that the license on the manuals would
allow a user who thinks that because! is reason enough for him,
to remove the GNU Manifesto, we
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If only we could be sure that the license on the manuals would
allow a user who thinks that because! is reason enough for
him, to remove the GNU Manifesto, we probably could still
distribute the unmidified manuals with the
On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 02:21:24PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
But the question itself is good, because many people do have the
impression that the changing it is not allowed language at the top
of the GPL itself is the final word. This question would be an
excellent place to refer to
Henning Makholm said:
Scripsit Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
If only we could be sure that the license on the manuals would
allow a user who thinks that because! is reason enough for
him, to remove the GNU Manifesto, we probably could still
distribute the unmidified manuals with
Hi Glenn,
On Friday 25 April 2003 05:00, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 04:57:36AM +0200, Thomas Uwe
Gruettmueller wrote:
On the other hand, the DFSGly non-free docs that are about
to be thrown out of main are at least as freely
distributable as any other package in main.
On Fri, 25 Apr 2003, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
[Disclaimer: if, at any point during the reading of this message, you see a
point which has been raised and covered before, please point me to the
archive message. I couldn't find anything in the d-legal archives back to
Jan-2002 which appeared to deal
On Sat, 26 Apr 2003, Matthew Palmer wrote:
I was about to pipe up with but we don't distribute novels with Debian
until I realised that we want to distribute a few other novel-like things -
pure documentation not associated with a specific software program (eg the
hoary old chestnut of the
Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 02:21:24PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
excellent place to refer to Brian's discovery.
/me sniffles dejectedly
But I made the same discovery 2 days earlier, on Tue, 22 Apr 2003
12:49:47 -0500 in Message-ID: [EMAIL
Scripsit Joe Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Henning Makholm said:
No, we just said that license text are sufficiently non-software-like to
enjoy an exception.
I think the key reason (that licenses are acceptable invariant texts) is
that the license text is a legal agreement between _you_ and the
On Fri, 25 Apr 2003, Mark Rafn wrote:
Could we produce a distinction amongst our offerings in the following
manner:
Why do we want to produce a distinction where there is none?
We obviously disagree on whether there is a distinction.
To roast a hoary chestnut, I've not yet seen a good
On Fri, 25 Apr 2003, Glenn Maynard wrote:
To roast a hoary chestnut, I've not yet seen a good argument why we'd
want the RFCs to be relicensed as DFSG-free, apart from the so it can
go into Debian main. Modifying an RFC and re-releasing it is not a
good thing, but the DFSG says it is
On Sun, Apr 20, 2003 at 05:35:14AM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
-- would you prefer that they hadn't seconded the
proposal either? We could have had a nicely silent majority.
I don't really see much value in me too posts. We build consensus by
responding to criticism, and there hasn't been
On Tue, Apr 22, 2003 at 06:59:45PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
One which isn't mentioned there is to amend the DFSG to allow the FDL and
similar licences.
Before someone schedules a MOAB test over my home, note that I am not
advocating this course, merely that it should be mentioned and
On Thu, 24 Apr 2003, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Tue, Apr 22, 2003 at 06:59:45PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
One which isn't mentioned there is to amend the DFSG to allow the FDL
and similar licences.
I think Why are Unmodifiable Sections a Problem? in the proposed FAQ I
just posted in
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why can't the DFSG be modified to accomodate the restrictions imposed by the
FDL? After all, RMS endorses it, so why shouldn't you?
The Debian Free Software Guidelines, combined with the Social Contract, are
the basic tenets by which Debian is
On Thu, Apr 24, 2003 at 05:47:35PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
In particular: for emacs21, ``with the Invariant Sections being The
GNU Manifesto, Distribution and GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE'', and
for gdb ``with the Invariant Sections being A Sample GDB Session and
Free Software'' and ``with
On Thu, Apr 24, 2003 at 08:27:19AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
On Thu, Apr 24, 2003 at 05:47:35PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
In particular: for emacs21, ``with the Invariant Sections being The
GNU Manifesto, Distribution and GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE'', and
for gdb ``with the Invariant
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
On Sun, Apr 20, 2003 at 05:35:14AM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
Debian's stance on the GNU Free Documentation License
...OR NOT (completely unofficial, draft, blahblah)
(Section I, 'Preserve the section entitled History', is also a candidate
On Thu, Apr 24, 2003 at 08:27:19AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
On Thu, Apr 24, 2003 at 05:47:35PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
In particular: for emacs21, ``with the Invariant Sections being The
GNU Manifesto, Distribution and GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE'', and
for gdb ``with the Invariant
Scripsit Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
On Sun, Apr 20, 2003 at 05:35:14AM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
-- would you prefer that they hadn't seconded the
proposal either? We could have had a nicely silent majority.
I don't really see much value in me too posts. We build consensus
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
The real answer is that:
(a) There's never any point making these things unmodifiable. Deriving
a new license that uses some parts of the GPL doesn't change
the license of old works, and isn't dangerous in any way --
On Thu, Apr 24, 2003 at 06:34:08PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
If the rule had, instead been, that Invariant Sections could not
themselves be modified, but could freely be omitted entirely in
derived works, Debian would be able to distribute GDFL'ed
documentation.
We can distribute
On Thu, Apr 24, 2003 at 12:22:27PM -0400, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
However, the legal text of the GPL is reusable (allowing modification
and distribution), as long as you don't include the name GPL, the
Preamble, or the instructions for use.
What makes you think this is the case?
Cheers,
aj
On Thu, Apr 24, 2003 at 06:34:08PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
If the rule had, instead been, that Invariant Sections could not
themselves be modified, but could freely be omitted entirely in
derived works, Debian would be able to distribute GDFL'ed
documentation.
On Fri, 25
Henning Makholm said:
Perhaps the O.A.C. ought to be our next target, but let us fight one
battle at a time.
EXPN O.A.C.?
(snip)
While we should definitely include the hijacking example, some care
should be exercised in phrasing an explanation of what we think it
proves. In particular it
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
On Thu, Apr 24, 2003 at 12:22:27PM -0400, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
However, the legal text of the GPL is reusable (allowing modification
and distribution), as long as you don't include the name GPL, the
Preamble, or the instructions for use.
What
Anthony Towns wrote:
As such, we cannot accept works that include Invariant Sections and
similar unmodifiable components into our distribution, which unfortunately
includes a number of current manuals for GNU software.
It may be worth noting that GNU manuals are hardly the only thing
effected
Hi Matthew and all,
On Thursday 24 April 2003 13:21, Matthew Palmer wrote:
I agree with what's expressed in the FAQ, but apart from the
section on why we think software and documentation should be
treated equally under the DFSG (quite a good argument there,
BTW) there's nothing there about
On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 04:57:36AM +0200, Thomas Uwe Gruettmueller wrote:
On the other hand, the DFSGly non-free docs that are about to be
thrown out of main are at least as freely distributable as any
other package in main. This is a quality that many packages in
non-free do not share with
On Sat, 19 Apr 2003, Anthony Towns wrote:
The Solution
There are a number of things that can be done to avoid this problem.
One which isn't mentioned there is to amend the DFSG to allow the FDL and
similar licences.
Before someone schedules a MOAB test over my home, note that
On Sat, 19 Apr 2003, Branden Robinson wrote:
(As an aside, I do wonder why we bother with platforms and rebuttals at
all in our DPL election process -- I suspect people make up their minds
about how they'll vote without such documents exerting much in the way
of influence at all.)
I'll say
On Tue, Apr 22, 2003 at 06:59:45PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
One which isn't mentioned there is to amend the DFSG to allow the FDL and
similar licences.
Before someone schedules a MOAB test over my home, note that I am not
advocating this course, merely that it should be mentioned and
(Hrm, asking for someone to handle this results in a motion for it
to be handled, and lots of seconds that aren't willing to actually do
anything. How helpful.)
Debian's stance on the GNU Free Documentation License
...OR NOT (completely unofficial, draft, blahblah)
20th April, 2003
In November
On Sat, Apr 19, 2003 at 11:29:38PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
(Hrm, asking for someone to handle this results in a motion for it
to be handled, and lots of seconds that aren't willing to actually do
anything. How helpful.)
That comment was unhelpful, and just discourages people from helping.
On Sat, Apr 19, 2003 at 11:29:38PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
(Hrm, asking for someone to handle this results in a motion for it
to be handled, and lots of seconds that aren't willing to actually do
anything. How helpful.)
Yeesh. I'm so used to getting screamed at when I make proposals, that
On Sun, Apr 20, 2003 at 05:35:14AM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
On Sat, Apr 19, 2003 at 11:29:38PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
(Hrm, asking for someone to handle this results in a motion for it
to be handled, and lots of seconds that aren't willing to actually do
anything. How helpful.)
70 matches
Mail list logo
