On Wed, 2003-08-27 at 21:50, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2003-08-28 03:41:47 +0100 Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I use documentation in the strictest sense here
[...] free publication license. Sorry for the confusion.
Documentation is not a subset of publication to you? A new twist
on an
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 09:36:13PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
You're invited to demonstrate an instance of someone coming up with the
exact same expression of the exact same copyrightable idea being sued
for copyright infringement and winning on the grounds of independent
reinvention.
GNU CVS repository, emacs/man/emacs.texi, revision 1.64
The following two changes are made in this revision:
-to redistribute it under certain conditions; type `show c'
+to redistribute it under certain conditions; type `show c'
and
-(which makes passes at compilers) written
+(which makes
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Heh. I just now realized, that false accusation that GFDL puts
additional restrictions to the user is the root of major part of all
that anti-GFDL hype.
Whether or not it's false is immaterial.
What is material is that the GFDL does not grant
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 10:33:46PM -0500, Chris Cheney wrote:
I got the following email back from Michael. So with the clarification
below that it is not allowed to use the JPEG-2000 part of the code for
non-standards based work make it non DFSG free? If so is there anyway to
make it DFSG
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
The GNU FDL, like the proprietary licenses I mentioned as examples,
offers a trade. Unlike the MIT/X11 license or the GNU GPL, the GNU
FDL does not only grant permissions to the user: it offers to trade
him some permissions in exchange for
We interrupt this thread to bring you new and exciting information:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Anthony Towns wrote:
Every copyright case that's lost by the defendents is an example.
That's the point: if you come up with the exact same expression, then
either you've copied, or there's a lack of
I propose something like the following as an addition to the Debian web
pages, at the bottom of http://www.debian.org/intro/free. I offer this
up for revision and use by the Debian community, or anyone else.
Motivation: some people seem to wish to remain in denial about the
project's
=== CUT HERE ===
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.
[ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published
by the Free Software Foundation, is
Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
Such point of view on freedom is dependent on the copyright law.
No, any given work may have slightly different restrictions in
different domains of copyright law, but from looking at a license to
see whether it tries to restrict the user or free the user, it's
still
Andreas Barth wrote:
Comment: documentation is not software, and DFSG is made with software
in mind.
Actually, the DSFG _was_ made with documentation in mind.
Bruce Perens wrote:
I intended for the entire contents of that CD to be under the rights stated
in the DSFG - be they software,
* Nathanael Nerode ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030828 08:35]:
I propose something like the following as an addition to the Debian web
pages, at the bottom of http://www.debian.org/intro/free. I offer this
up for revision and use by the Debian community, or anyone else.
[ put on the web pages GFDL
* Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003-08-28 02:10]:
Motivation: some people seem to wish to remain in denial about the
project's decision on this matter. This will help their psychological
problem. ;-)
It is no good for the (what I know) still unfinished discussion on that
topic if
Quoting Nathanael Nerode ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
I propose something like the following as an addition to the Debian web
pages, at the bottom of http://www.debian.org/intro/free. I offer this
up for revision and use by the Debian community, or anyone else.
Motivation: some people seem to
Brian T. Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb/wrote:
But since Debian distributes only software, and Invariants must be
Secondary... actually, isn't the GNU Manifesto non-secondary when
distributed as part of Debian GNU/Whatever?
There are even some immutable files in base-files that are
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
Every copyright case that's lost by the defendents is an
example. That's the point: if you come up with the exact same
expression, then either you've copied, or there's a lack of
originality in the work to start with.
I thought I'd been following
Gerfried Fuchs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It is no good for the (what I know) still unfinished discussion on
that topic if want to spread even more FUD as there is already about
it.
For what it's worth, I think the discussion on d-l will end only
when the participants die of exhaustion. I
* Scott James Remnant [EMAIL PROTECTED] [030828 05:12]:
[...]
4. Request the patch from the revision containing the licence change to
the HEAD.
c. This patch is an *entirely*separate* work to the documentation
file(s) it modifies.
[...]
ii. The patch file includes no terms
On 2003-08-28 09:55:58 +0100 Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Comment: documentation is not software, and DFSG is made with software
in mind. [...]
Please read
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200308/msg00690.html
for more information on what was in mind when DFSG
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 02:50:09 -0400 (EDT)
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It would be fair to say that Debian has decided that the GFDL is not
free according to the DFSG. This opinion has only been getting
stronger and more unified over time. However, there is a significant
minority
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 11:35:16AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Why have we another sudden influx of people who haven't read any of
the history on this? (Rhetorical. I think we can guess.)
I'll answer it anyway: it's because our conclusions are reaching a
wider audience, which means we have more
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 01:55:43PM +0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Heh. I just now realized, that false accusation that GFDL
puts additional restrictions to the user is the root of major part
of all that anti-GFDL hype.
We've been discussing it for years now. I would hardly call that
Brian T. Sniffen said:
Indeed, I started with documentation and switched to text as more
general; it's hard to keep the sentence structure so close using the
word work. Content sounds good, so far.
Only trouble I have with Content is that is sounds like the document
formatting doesn't have to
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 03:22:47AM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
the difference is in the trailing whitespace, but that's irrelevant.
No, it's relevant. In the section you quote:
L. Preserve all the Invariant Sections of the Document, unaltered
in their text
Sergey V. Spiridonov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
Such point of view on freedom is dependent on the copyright law.
No, any given work may have slightly different restrictions in
different domains of copyright law, but from looking at a license to
see whether it tries to
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 03:07:00AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 02:19:06PM -0700, Joe Buck wrote:
I don't think the line that there is consensus on debian-legal will
wash, unless you overrule the sarge release masters and
IANAL, TINLA. Consult with a professional familiar with your situation.
Scott James Remnant said:
4. Request the patch from the revision containing the licence change to
the HEAD.
a. This patch should not include any licence changes.
This patch is derived from the work under the new
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 09:38:08 -0400 (EDT)
Joe Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David B Harris said:
Scott James Remnant [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-(which makes passes at compilers) written
+(which makes passes at compilers) written
I agree that this is an ambiguous case; one side would want
(Ignoring the fact that your statement about the DFSG was untrue, which
has been pointed out elsewhere...)
On Thu, 2003-08-28 at 03:55, Andreas Barth wrote:
Having said this, we must now try to work without the special rules as
good as possible, unless someone proposes these rules in time for
* MJ Ray ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030828 12:50]:
On 2003-08-28 09:55:58 +0100 Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Comment: documentation is not software, and DFSG is made with software
in mind. [...]
Please read
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200308/msg00690.html
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 10:07:41AM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
J?r?me Marant [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Quoting Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
J?r?me Marant [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This is why I'd prefer a case per study. Some invariants would be
acceptable (like Free Software
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 12:53:34AM +0900, Fedor Zuev wrote:
1) Can't be counted as accept any action you perform
_before_ you receive and read the offer.
This is incorrect. There may be specific cases where it holds, but it
does not in general.
2) Can't be counted as accept any
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 06:25:45PM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 03:22:47AM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
the difference is in the trailing whitespace, but that's irrelevant.
No, it's relevant. In the section you quote:
L. Preserve all the
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 02:28:31AM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
Generic free content freedoms should probably apply to things like
musical performance as well, and I don't see these fitting very fell
for that.
A musical performance as such, or a recording thereof?
It's going to be difficult
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 02:49:18PM +0900, Fedor Zuev wrote:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Andrew Suffield wrote:
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
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 02:50:09AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
It would be fair to say that Debian has decided that the GFDL is not
free according to the DFSG. This opinion has only been getting
stronger and more unified over time. However, there is a significant
minority who believe that
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 02:56:59PM +0900, Fedor Zuev wrote:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Andrew Suffield wrote:
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
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 06:08:47PM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 11:35:16AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Why have we another sudden influx of people who haven't read any of
the history on this? (Rhetorical. I think we can guess.)
I'll answer it anyway: it's because our
On Thu, 2003-08-28 at 10:25, Richard Braakman wrote:
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 03:22:47AM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
the difference is in the trailing whitespace, but that's irrelevant.
No, it's relevant. In the section you quote:
L. Preserve all the Invariant Sections
[Rick, apologies for the CC if you are subscribed to this list.]
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 01:54:31AM -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
This reminded me of something I noticed earlier today. The Securing
Debian Manual at
http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/securing-debian-howto/ has in its
front material
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 11:37:46PM +0200, J?r?me Marant wrote:
I just request being respected
within a serious discussion. Is it too much to ask?
Yes. Respect has to be earned at the best of times, and you've pretty
successfully destroyed your supply for the next few months.
--
.''`. **
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 09:00:12AM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
For what it's worth, I think the discussion on d-l will end only
when the participants die of exhaustion. I believe Brandon will
announce the results of the d-l poll today (unless he has already and
I haven't gotten to it).
Who?
On 2003-08-28 17:30:36 +0100 Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I _have_ read the history. But in spite of Bruce words the DFSG just
doesn't apply plainly to e.g. documentation. [...]
You said DFSG is made with software in mind and implied that
documentation is not a subset of software.
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 01:22:09AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2003-08-26 19:48:17 +0100 Wouter Vanden Hove
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi, Where can I find the actual Debian-decision on the GNU Free
Documentation License?
Inside the skulls of ftpmasters and release managers. Wrap up well,
as
David B Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 02:50:09 -0400 (EDT)
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It would be fair to say that Debian has decided that the GFDL is not
free according to the DFSG. This opinion has only been getting
stronger and more unified over time.
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 10:13:04PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
If the code is copyrighted, then we must consider the case of someone
incorporating the Sun RPC code into a work and distributing it to a
second person, who subsequently refines this work to create yet another
work which happens
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 06:08:47PM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 11:35:16AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Why have we another sudden influx of people who haven't read any of
the history on this? (Rhetorical. I think we can guess.)
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 09:00:12AM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
For what it's worth, I think the discussion on d-l will end only
when the participants die of exhaustion. I believe Brandon will
announce the results of the d-l poll today (unless he
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 10:58:02PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
By using copyright law to reinforce software patents (which are a load
of hooey to begin with of course), the license becomes non-free. A
notice that the software is subject to patents would be free, but making
it a binding part
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 02:44:57AM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
Ya know, I was always sure that or (at your option) any later version
header people blindly add to their source would turn out to be a Bad
Thing.
Imagine... GPLv3 with Invariant Sections... Microsoft take Linux and add
a
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 02:32:27AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2003-08-28 01:28:54 +0100 Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Enjoy is not a term I would use to describe the process of
experiencing, say, Derrida's _Limited Inc._, but if that work were
freely licensed, I would certainly be
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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, as far as I
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 03:09:02PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 02:05:54AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
* Copyright requires the protected subject to be original.
I think that principle is unique to the U.S.; in fact, that's the whole
*point* of this subthread!
I
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.
[ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published
by the Free Software Foundation, is not a license
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Andreas Barth wrote:
Proof:
e.g. look at DFSG 4:
[SNIP]
How does this match to docu?
Source code in this context refers to the prefered form of
modification which is transformed into the form or forms used by the
end user or viewer.
See SGML, texi, docbook, and pod for
Der Virus SOBIG.F wurde empfangen und gelöscht.
From: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thu Aug 28 19:43:33 2003 Delete
Filtername: CONTENT FILTER
This document should only be read by those persons to whom it is addressed
and is not intended to be relied upon by any person
Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 03:07:00AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 02:19:06PM -0700, Joe Buck wrote:
I don't think the line that there is consensus on debian-legal will
wash,
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As for GPL 3, do you intend to use clauses similar to invariant sections
or to the technical measures stuff in GFDL section 2? This is a matter
of concern on this list.
That surprises me, since I believe I sent a message to this list
On 2003-08-28 21:51:41 +0100 Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Op do 28-08-2003, om 20:02 schreef MJ Ray:
Ye gods! Who knew that software was such a contentious word?
Agreed. Perhaps we should...
... Oh, wait. I already suggested we'd do so.
...and I said yes, but you should do it
On 2003-08-28 19:40:08 +0100 Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Branden Robinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030828 20:35]:
What's your threshold of statistical significance? I'd like to know
for
the purposes of commentary on my final survey reponse summary,
which I
can produce about 12 hours
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[Rick, apologies for the CC if you are subscribed to this list.]
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 01:54:31AM -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
This reminded me of something I noticed earlier today. The Securing
Debian Manual at
Der Virus SOBIG.F wurde in Ihrem Mail gefunden.
The virus SOBIG.F has been found in your message.
This document should only be read by those persons to whom it is addressed
and is not intended to be relied upon by any person without subsequent
written confirmation of its contents. If you have
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 11:13:42PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
We interrupt this thread to bring you new and exciting information:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Anthony Towns wrote:
Every copyright case that's lost by the defendents is an example.
That's the point: if you come up with the exact
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The point has already been made that the DFSG requirements *are*
just as necessary for documentation as they are for
programs. (The same motivations apply.)
The same motivations apply, but your argument ignores the fundamental
difference between
On Thu, 2003-08-28 at 04:22, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
* Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003-08-28 02:10]:
Motivation: some people seem to wish to remain in denial about the
project's decision on this matter. This will help their psychological
problem. ;-)
It is no good for the
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
The KJV is not a program. But it is software. Software has a
different extension than programs.
An argument could even be made that the KJV is a program, only with a
set of ruless governing people, rather than a set of rules governing a
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 01:54:31AM -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
This reminded me of something I noticed earlier today. The Securing
Debian Manual at
http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/securing-debian-howto/ has in its
front material the following:
[...]
Permission is granted to copy, distribute
67 matches
Mail list logo
