Francesco Poli wrote:
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 22:51:31 +0200 Olive wrote:
[...]
What make sense is what Debian considers free and as long as
the decision is taken according to rules we can say that Debian
considers it free.
*As long as the decision is taken according to rules*...
What do you
Ben Finney wrote:
Olive [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Francesco Poli wrote:
Firstoff, please note that *packages* are accepted in main or
otherwise rejected. *Packages*, not *licenses*.
OK, but packages are accepted according to their license; when I say
that Debian accept a license I mean that
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ITYM Francesco Poli won't stop crapflooding debian-legal with his
dissenting view about the freeness of CC by-SA 3.0, making it ever harder to
find relevant posts like
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/08/msg00262.html and
Freek Dijkstra [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You assert that GPLv3 allows parallel distribution (thus a work
with/on DRM as long as it is also available for free), while CC
does never allow a work on/with DRM. That is a difference indeed.
One, yes. This thread has become quite long enough without
Francesco Poli wrote:
Well, I made a detailed analysis of the issues I see in CC-by(-sa)-v3.0
licenses.
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/07/msg00124.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/03/msg00105.html
Just saying that they are in spirit the same as GPL is *not* a
convincing
Thanks for all the feedback!
The majority of the discussion seems to have shifted to CC-BY-SA 3.0,
even though my initial question was about GPL v3. Let me first summarize
the comments on the creative commons discussion.
Kudos to Olive for making the most useful distinction in this
discussion:
Ben Finney wrote:
Olive [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ben Finney wrote:
By what criterion do you decide that something is indeed
DFSG-free? If such a criterion existed, I'm sure we'd love to
know about it. It would make our lives on this list much simpler.
For the GFDL; I consider a GR-vote as
What if there's a popular vote that declares that the Earth is flat?
Does the Earth suddenly become flat, because of that?
The DFSG is subject to interpretation and it is not possible to decide
all cases definitively by just reading the terms. Debian has set rules
to decide if a work can or
You seem to imply that a conscientious decision is by definition based
on correct reasoning and equally correct conclusions.
As if FTP masters could only be wrong when they press the wrong key on
their keyboard by mistake.
As far as I know, FTP masters are human beings and can therefore make
So while the method is rather different, the end-result is exactly the
same. At least, so it seems to me. So I asl my question again: In this
light, doesn't that make GPLv3 just a free or non-free (in particular
DSFG-free or DSFG-non-free) as CC-BY and CC-BY-SA?
Olive wrote:
The persons who are entitled to take a decision (i.e. the ftp masters)
have decided that CC-BY-SA is free. Many people here say that something
is not suitable for main even though it has already been decided
otherwise by the persons entitled to take the decision. They mistake
Shriramana Sharma wrote:
Olive wrote:
The persons who are entitled to take a decision (i.e. the ftp masters)
have decided that CC-BY-SA is free. Many people here say that
something is not suitable for main even though it has already been
decided otherwise by the persons entitled to take the
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 12:36:49 +0200 Olive wrote:
You seem to imply that a conscientious decision is by definition
based on correct reasoning and equally correct conclusions.
As if FTP masters could only be wrong when they press the wrong key
on their keyboard by mistake.
As far as I
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 15:59:35 -0700 Steve Langasek wrote:
On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 11:50:32PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 13:16:39 +1000 Ben Finney wrote:
Freek Dijkstra [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
it's probably non-free, and best not put it in main. Correct?
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 09:31:04 +0200 Freek Dijkstra wrote:
[...]
Are they *DFSG-free* or not? So yes, it *is* a GR-vote who
decides here. Because the DFSG are only changed or clarified by such a
vote.
Please note that GR-2006-001 (http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001)
did not change the
Francesco Poli wrote:
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 12:36:49 +0200 Olive wrote:
You seem to imply that a conscientious decision is by definition
based on correct reasoning and equally correct conclusions.
As if FTP masters could only be wrong when they press the wrong key
on their keyboard by mistake.
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 22:51:31 +0200 Olive wrote:
[...]
What make sense is what Debian considers free and as long as
the decision is taken according to rules we can say that Debian
considers it free.
*As long as the decision is taken according to rules*...
What do you mean?
As long as the
Olive [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Francesco Poli wrote:
Firstoff, please note that *packages* are accepted in main or
otherwise rejected. *Packages*, not *licenses*.
OK, but packages are accepted according to their license; when I say
that Debian accept a license I mean that it accept
On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 10:13:31PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 09:31:04 +0200 Freek Dijkstra wrote:
Are they *DFSG-free* or not? So yes, it *is* a GR-vote who
decides here. Because the DFSG are only changed or clarified by such a
vote.
Please note that GR-2006-001
Ben Finney wrote:
Freek Dijkstra [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Relevant part, in article 4a of
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode
You may not impose any effective technological measures on the
Work that restrict the ability of a recipient of the Work from You
to exercise the
Olive [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ben Finney wrote:
Freek Dijkstra [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Relevant part, in article 4a of
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode
You may not impose any effective technological measures on the
Work that restrict the ability of a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You may not impose any effective technological measures on the Work
that restrict the ability of a recipient of the Work from You to
exercise the rights granted to that recipient under the terms of the
License.
There seem to be consensus that as long as there is no
Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There seem to be consensus that as long as there is no vote on [CC
by-sa 3.0], it's probably non-free, and best not put it in
main. Correct?
Wrong. CC-BY-SA 3.0 is a free license and many works licensed this
way are in main.
Ben Finney wrote:
Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There seem to be consensus that as long as there is no vote on [CC
by-sa 3.0], it's probably non-free, and best not put it in
main. Correct?
Wrong. CC-BY-SA 3.0 is a free license and many works licensed this
Olive [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There are known example of things that are indeed DFSG-free
By what criterion do you decide that something is indeed DFSG-free?
If such a criterion existed, I'm sure we'd love to know about it. It
would make our lives on this list much simpler.
but were
Ben Finney wrote:
Olive [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There are known example of things that are indeed DFSG-free
By what criterion do you decide that something is indeed DFSG-free?
If such a criterion existed, I'm sure we'd love to know about it. It
would make our lives on this list much
Olive wrote:
non DFSG-free. Debian legal is only a mailing list to discuss licenses,
by no means it is a tribunal that can take official decision. Only the
ftp masters or a vote can decide litigious cases.
And whom do the ftp-masters themselves answer to? Quis custodiet ipsos
custodes?
Olive wrote:
non DFSG-free. Debian legal is only a mailing list to discuss licenses, by
no means it is a tribunal that can take official decision. Only the ftp
masters or a vote can decide litigious cases.
Uh, litigious cases get decided by a court presumably. Contentious might
be the
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 16:42:25 +0200 Olive wrote:
Ben Finney wrote:
Olive [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There are known example of things that are indeed DFSG-free
By what criterion do you decide that something is indeed
DFSG-free? If such a criterion existed, I'm sure we'd love to know
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 13:16:39 +1000 Ben Finney wrote:
Freek Dijkstra [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
it's probably non-free, and best not put it in main. Correct?
That's my understanding, yes. Largely on the basis that it's imposing
a non-free restriction (You may not ...) on the recipient.
Olive [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ben Finney wrote:
By what criterion do you decide that something is indeed
DFSG-free? If such a criterion existed, I'm sure we'd love to
know about it. It would make our lives on this list much simpler.
For the GFDL; I consider a GR-vote as a valid
On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 11:50:32PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 13:16:39 +1000 Ben Finney wrote:
Freek Dijkstra [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
it's probably non-free, and best not put it in main. Correct?
That's my understanding, yes. Largely on the basis that
Anthony Towns wrote:
And whom do the ftp-masters themselves answer to? Quis custodiet ipsos
custodes? Debian is answerable to the public, you know.
No, Debian's answerable to its members, which is the or a vote option
above. The only senses in which Debian's answerable to the public is by
Freek Dijkstra [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Relevant part, in article 4a of
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode
You may not impose any effective technological measures on the
Work that restrict the ability of a recipient of the Work from You
to exercise the rights
34 matches
Mail list logo
