Re: Starting to talk
On Tuesday 23 September 2003 09:24, Josselin Mouette wrote: PS: Am I the only one with the impression every single thing must be repeated to RMS AND yeupou AND Fedor Zuev AND Sergey foobar and any other blind GFDL advocate who is told Debian is BAD, because they want to drop FREE (it is written free on it, so it is certainly free) documentation from the GREAT GNU project ? No. Judging from those who support it, I'm starting to think that this great GNU project (or in this case more specifically the FSF) has lost much of its greatness. Which is a shame, since I share the sentiment expressed by other folks on this list that Open Source is a terribly inferior term[1] when compared to Free Software. Cheers, Yven [1]: Not useless though, since at least IMO it often serves, (or at least may serve) as a gentle introduction to the more fundamentally challenging concepts like freedom... -- Yven Johannes Leist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.leist.beldesign.de
Annotated GFDL
I've put a copy of the GFDL with descriptions of various issues at http://www.codon.org.uk/~mjg59/fdl.html . It's likely that I've missed things, made mistakes or phrased stuff badly, so feedback would be good. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: a DFSG/GNU FDL quick reference webpage
On Fri, Sep 26, 2003 at 11:15:18PM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote: Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If you have additional links to suggest, please do so in reply to this message (replying to the list is fine). There's also: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200309/msg00703.html Thanks! I've added it. -- G. Branden Robinson| The National Security Agency is Debian GNU/Linux | working on the Fourth Amendment [EMAIL PROTECTED] | thing. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Phil Lago, Deputy XD, CIA signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: FSF has stopped linking to Debian website
On Friday 26 September 2003, at 14 h 23, Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Compare: http://web.archive.org/web/20021128102620/http://www.gnu.org/links/links.ht= ml with: [ http://www.gnu.org/links/links.html ] Funny, FSF does not mention Debian or FreeBSD anymore, but it mentions VMS, Windows NT and BeOS (all of them free operating systems, as we know).
Re: License requirements for DSP binaries?
On Fri, Sep 26, 2003 at 08:00:08PM -0400, Brian T. Sniffen wrote: That isn't ignoring the DFSG, it's just using the GPL's definition of Source: the preferred form for modification. If I use the Gimp to make an image and delete the intermediate xcf files, the only remaining source forms are the raw inputs and the output. It's important to retain a proper attitude towards this sort of decision: the intent of the humans involves really matters. Whether they really had the source and now don't, and why that is, matters a great deal. It's a very blurry line. We can interpret DFSG#2 to mean the form closest to source that still exists if we want, but it's extremely questionable to try to interpret preferred form for modification as preferred form for modification, or any form, no matter how unreasonable it is to edit, if the preferred form for modification has been lost. In any case, I don't think anyone has actually claimed that IBM has lost the source. Asking them for it is probably the best thing to do next. -- Glenn Maynard
Respect for Upstream Authors and Snippets of Interest
First of all, I would like to publicly thank RMS for engaging in a sustained and illuminating conversation on this list. He has been confronted with an outrageously low signal-to-noise ratio. The thoughtful and well-reasoned messages have been buried in a mass of counterproductive picayune harping on terminology and word choice, ad-homenim arguments, insultingly-phrased demands, and even outright insults. Reading such a mass of text is quite a burden; more so when it is mostly crap; and particularly burdensome when the crap attacks the reader personally and unfairly. Despite this, some sensible dialog and useful exchange of views has occurred. In a recent message to this list, RMS mentioned that people had stated that Debian would remove all non-modifiable but removable text from Debian packages: According to Don Armstrong, a non-modifiable text cannot under any circumstances be considered DFSG-free, so it would have to be removed from the manual. Others have (it appears) said the same thing. Having seen a lot of rigid dogmatism here recently, I can hardly expect Debian not to be rigidly dogmatic on this issue too. Based on long-standing Debian tradition and practice, this is decidedly and demonstrably not the case! Don and others were perhaps writing in haste. Debian has a longstanding practice of respect for upstream authors. For instance, if the author of a GPLed program includes a statement in a README please if you like this program I'd very much appreciate it if you sent me $10, we do not remove such a statement. We even include offers by the author to sell the right to include the code in a proprietary program. To my knowledge, in all the many thousands of packages in Debian, such statements have never been removed! Even though Debian might find such an offer repulsive, we respect our upstream authors enough to include them. Another example of this sort of respect is our treatment of code obtained under a dual license. Debian has, to my knowledge, never redistributed code that was given to us under a dual license under just one of those licenses. This is the case even when we consider the other license quite abhorrent! Nor have we relicensed weakly licensed code (eg programs from the Free BSDs) under the GPL. Nor have we released LGPLed code under the GPL. Debian could do these things, but out of respect for our upstream authors we don't. As a last example, many source tarballs include snippets, defined as follows. *** BY MY DEFINITION: *** *** A snippet is a file in a source tarball which: *** *** - merely accompanies and is not an integral part of the source *** - is non-functional (not code, not documentation, not needed for build) *** - is usually of historic, humorous, or prurient interest *** - is removable *** - is usually not itself modifiable, eg may redistribute verbatim *** *** (Good examples of such snippets are historic or humorous emails *** and usenet posts, political essays, jokes, and the like.) To my knowledge Debian has not only never removed a snippet from the source we distribute, but includes such snippets in the binaries, typically in ...-doc.deb. One example of this is GNU Emacs, which includes a bunch of such snippets, all of which are included---right now---in /usr/share/emacs/21.2/etc/. All of them are removable: sex.6 (which is of questionable taste), GNU, CENSORSHIP (which is dated into such irrelevance that its inclusion is arguably embarrassing), LINUX-GNU (whose first sentence misleadingly reads The GNU project started 12 years ago), COOKIES (whose relevance, copyright status, and humor value is unclear), etc. Rob Browning, who packages GNU Emacs for Debian, could remove all of these snippets, or could go through and remove only some of them. But he doesn't, and I daresay I'd be quite shocked if he ever did. Debian does require the *right* to remove such snippets. And if there were an unacceptable snippets (racist screeds say, or SCO lawsuit apologist tracts, or libelous text) we would probably exercise that right. To my knowledge, this has never occurred. People who say that such snippets have no place in Debian, and constitute violations of the DFSG, are attempting to impose a very foolish consistency. And Jan Schumacher's statement: A /non-modifiable/ text could not be included in Debian, a /modifiable/ one would most likely be. is a load of hooey. Inclusion of snippets is not a violation of the DFSG. Such an overly-literal interpretation of the rules is precisely why we call them D-F-S-***GUIDELINES***! Because we use common sense in their application.
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) a tapoté : 1. Is this MP3 file software or hardware? This is one is definitely worse: you explicitely point out which definition of the word software you think is the most usual, by asking to refer to this definition. Well, yes: I'm being upfront about in which domain I'm placing the question. Simply asking Is this MP3 software? doesn't give any meaningful data, because you can't control for bias on the part of the individual. Well, what you call controlling for bias is in fact controlling the data. Have you some background in sociology? You know, there's are interesting books that explain some acceptable methodology to follow when doing interviews and wanting meaningful data (in a little bit scientific and honnest way). For instance, controling for bias should be done once you already collected the data, not during this collection of _raw_ data, if you do not want to alter too much the _raw_ data. Is this MP3 software? seems to be a correct question: it does not propose any definition of software to follow, so the questioned one must answer by explaining partly what he considers to be software. -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : On 2003-09-26 21:48:48 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1. Is this MP3 file software or hardware? This is one is definitely worse: you explicitely point out which definition of the word software you think is the most usual, by asking to refer to this definition. ITYM implicitly. If it were explicit, the question would be: Is this MP3 file software, where software is defined as? Then again, given the level of mindgames and word games that you have engaged so far, I might be missing your private definition of the word implicit. Well, my definition of ad hominem is shared by ancient roman history teachers -- excuse me but I think that this topic they deserve to be trusted by comparison to these simplistic fallacious blabla webpages. Well, my definition of logiciel is shared by the Académie Française, which is the authority in matter of French vocabulary. Well, my usual definition of software is at least shared by most of non-french the persons I've ever meet. I would not call these definitions private. In this case, the point of the question was explicit: both words software and hardware were named and presented as alternative answers. However, the definition underlying was implicit, correct. -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: FSF has stopped linking to Debian website
Stephane Bortzmeyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : On Friday 26 September 2003, at 14 h 23, Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Compare: http://web.archive.org/web/20021128102620/http://www.gnu.org/links/links.ht= ml with: [ http://www.gnu.org/links/links.html ] Funny, FSF does not mention Debian or FreeBSD anymore, An explanation has been added http://savannah.gnu.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs/links/links.html.diff?r1=1.28r2=1.29diff_format=hcvsroot=www.gnu.org * OpenBSD was removed because of mpg123... Well, it cannot imagine that it was not possible to convince OpenBSD people to replace it with mpg321. Strange. http://savannah.gnu.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs/links/links.html.diff?r1=1.27r2=1.28diff_format=hcvsroot=www.gnu.org * NetBSD and FreeBSD links were removed because they have proprietary software packages that the distribute on their respective websites. http://savannah.gnu.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs/links/links.html.diff?r1=1.26r2=1.27diff_format=hcvsroot=www.gnu.org For NetBSD, I think that's it: http://www.netbsd.org/gallery/software.html For FreeBSD, I did not found the problem on the website. Anyway, it's not a big surprise that *BSD refers to non-free software since the BSD licenses permits building non-free software with their code. * Debian has been removed because of the non-free part. http://savannah.gnu.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs/links/links.html.diff?r1=1.24r2=1.25diff_format=hcvsroot=www.gnu.org It has been done 5 weeks, 4 days ago. I hope this has nothing to do with the GFDL issue, which should be treated as a separated issue, if we are not planning to start a war. Sadly, it sounds like a divorce is near. We all have something to loose here. -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: Respect for Upstream Authors and Snippets of Interest
On Fri, 26 Sep 2003, Barak Pearlmutter wrote: Based on long-standing Debian tradition and practice, this is decidedly and demonstrably not the case! Don and others were perhaps writing in haste. Can you provide a concrete example of such a snippet which is not under the licence applied to the entire package by the COPYRIGHT, COPYING, or AUTHORS file and restricts modification or removal? I'm aware of none in any of the packages that I package or have looked over. To my knowledge, in all the many thousands of packages in Debian, such statements have never been removed! Even though Debian might find such an offer repulsive, we respect our upstream authors enough to include them. Sure, but in all of these cases we have the right to remove them, as well as the right to modify them. We simply choose not to exercise that right. In my responses to RMS on this issue, I have repeatedly stated that we in general do not modify or delete portions of packages unless we have to. A /non-modifiable/ text could not be included in Debian, a /modifiable/ one would most likely be. is a load of hooey. Inclusion of snippets is not a violation of the DFSG. Such an overly-literal interpretation of the rules is precisely why we call them D-F-S-***GUIDELINES***! Because we use common sense in their application. The right to modify anything except the license and copyright statement in a package is an important right for our users to exercise. I mean, we even explicitly list it in the DFSG: 3: The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software. I'm unaware of us ever saying that DFSG free licences 'must allow modifications to most of the package' or 'modifications to important parts of the package.' In the few cases where non-free nuggets exist in upstream sources, we have removed the nuggets. Getting back to what I understand to be the crux of your statement, I am still unable to formulate a decent line of reasoning that logically argues for the inclusion of unmodifiable 'snippets' whilst increasing or maintaining our user's freedom to modify the contents of the package to do whatever task our user's see fit to do. If someone could just formulate such a line, I might be willing to buy into it, but as it stands, I'd much rather have the freedom, thank-you-very-much. Don Armstrong -- People selling drug paraphernalia ... are as much a part of drug trafficking as silencers are a part of criminal homicide. -- John Brown, DEA Chief http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgpIyoQl7k9O8.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: stepping in between Debian and FSF [Was: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal]
Le ven 26/09/2003 à 08:35, Bruce Perens a écrit : On Thu, Sep 25, 2003 at 11:27:06PM -0700, bruce wrote: I met with Eben Moglen the other day. I have some other FSF folks on my list that I haven't been able to speak with yet, and will try to get to on Friday. I want to talk with them some more before bringing it to the list, but the situation hardly seems immovable. This is very good news. RMS often gives the impression to be the only person to make decisions at the FSF, and I am happy to hear some people want things to change. (BTW, I fully support you on the non-free removal side, and am sure I am not alone on this list. I hope the GR can be voted soon.) -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée.
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
On 2003-09-27 09:28:31 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, my definition of ad hominem is shared by ancient roman history teachers -- excuse me but I think that this topic they deserve to be trusted by comparison to these simplistic fallacious blabla webpages. This makes so little sense that I await the appearance of Rathieu Moy in this thread. Well, my definition of logiciel is shared by the Académie Française, which is the authority in matter of French vocabulary. Yes and no. The definition of the AF contradicts itself and most people look at Petit Robert too. After all, the AF campaigns refuses common import words like week-end don't they? In this case, the point of the question was explicit: both words software and hardware were named and presented as alternative answers. However, the definition underlying was implicit, correct. No, you are still wrong. It did not say The point of this question is ...: Is this MP3...? Gr. I hate retcon attempts. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
On 2003-09-27 09:20:01 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Have you some background in sociology? Have you some background in psychology? If so, you should know that people try to pick the narrowest class by default and will likely answer Is this MP3 software? with It's music. That is part of the reason why the question was biased. For instance, controling for bias should be done once you already collected the data, not during this collection of _raw_ data, if you do not want to alter too much the _raw_ data. You clearly do not have a background in statistics. You must try to avoid bias when designing the data collection, else you may alias different factors and waste a lot of money. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
Software, vegetable, mineral, was: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
On 2003-09-26 08:04:12 +0100 Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 0) Is printed Emacs Manual in bookstore a software or hardware? Not necessarily either. 1) Is Emacs Manual recorded on CD-Audio a software or hardware? Not necessarily either, but I forget exactly what CD-Audio is. 2) Is Debian/main printed as book a software or hardware? It is a physical representation of software. 3) Why? What differs from 0,1? It differs from 1 in that it is easily readable by a computer to produce software. 4) Is Debian/main printed into punch-cards a software or hardware? It is a physical representation of software. 5) Why? What differs from 0,1,2? It is software written to punch cards. 6) Is Debian/main written on CD-ROM a software or hardware? Physical representation of software. 7) Why? What differs from 0, 1,2,4? Similar to answer 5. 8)Is Debian logo written on [cover of] the same CD-ROM software or hardware? Not necessarily either. 9) Why? What differs from 0, 1, 2, 4, 6? See 3. 10) Is Debian installation, hardcoded into embedded system software or hardware? Maybe neither, both or firmware. I don't really know what you mean. 11) Why? What differs from 0, 1, 2, 4, 6, 8? It sounds like a piece of hardware designed to produce software. 12) Does DFSG extends to computer programs, when they are not loaded into computer memory? (For example what about program, which is freely distributable only over Internet?) Incomprehensible question. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
Re: License requirements for DSP binaries?
it's extremely questionable to try to interpret preferred form for modification as preferred form for modification, or any form, no matter how unreasonable it is to edit, if the preferred form for modification has been lost. The preferred form for modification is not the form we'd like to edit. I've got an Algol68 compiler written in Fortran 66 and JCL, which is not my preferred form for modification, but I don't think anyone would argue that I don't have the source code, even though there theoretically exists a semantically identical compiler written in Ada and Make. Even though there exists in theory a semantically identical assembler or C source file, if only the binary exists in reality, that is the preferred form of modification. In some cases of ROMs, like those for early gaming systems, that form is frequently modified. Perhaps there exists a line between 10K of binary and 10M of binary where it goes from the preferred form of modification to unmodifiable (in a practical sense), but there are many cases of source code in assembler or C where the source code is unmodifiable (in a practical sense). -- __ Sign-up for your own personalized E-mail at Mail.com http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup CareerBuilder.com has over 400,000 jobs. Be smarter about your job search http://corp.mail.com/careers
Re: a DFSG/GNU FDL quick reference webpage
Hi, On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 16:50:37 -0500, Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: I have occasionally received requests in private mail for some links to a document summarizing Debian's position on the GNU FDL as it relates to the DFSG. I think we need to have a position statement, issued under the Debian constitution section 4.1.5. As we know, there isn't any one canonical document, but I think we've reached the point where a few mailing list messages and existing essays cover most of the ground which gets tiresome re-covered in this mailing list over and over again. I have, therefore, updated my FDL webpage: http://people.debian.org/~branden/fdl/ I have started crafting a position statement, and have explicitly incorporated all the concerns on the pages that are linked to from Branden's page. I don't intend to add any essays or position statements to the body of that page; I'd rather it served as a jumping-off point for further reading. I have incorporated all these links into one coherent document, though I am still in the process of expanding the document. Please visit URL:http://people.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/Position_Statement.xhtml Any comments, feedback, suggested wording, and proof reading appreciated. manoj -- All of a sudden, I want to THROW OVER my promising ACTING CAREER, grow a LONG BLACK BEARD and wear a BASEBALL HAT!! ... Although I don't know WHY!! Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
For instance, controling for bias should be done once you already collected the data, not during this collection of _raw_ data, if you do not want to alter too much the _raw_ data. You clearly do not have a background in statistics. Unfortunately your point of view does not reflect reality. You must try to avoid bias when designing the data collection Clearly. What is called here controlling for bias is indeed introducing bias -- a big one. Avoiding bias means trying to collect _raw_ data. When you question someone, he should not be able to clearly know what answer you expect from him. , else you may alias different factors and The biggest factor of bias here is the author (of the question) point of view. waste a lot of money. It is about money here? Why talking about money here? -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: Respect for Upstream Authors and Snippets of Interest
On Fri, Sep 26, 2003 at 07:31:14PM -0600, Barak Pearlmutter wrote: A /non-modifiable/ text could not be included in Debian, a /modifiable/ one would most likely be. is a load of hooey. Inclusion of snippets is not a violation of the DFSG. Such an overly-literal interpretation of the rules is precisely why we call them D-F-S-***GUIDELINES***! Because we use common sense in their application. Yes, and reject anything that impinges unacceptably on freedom, regardless of how it might be twisted to fit the DFSG. That includes such non-modifiable texts. Please do not attempt to make the Debian has no principles but the DFSG, and the DFSG is only a set of guidelines, therefore Debian has no principles and can do anything argument, because it's nonsense. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: License requirements for DSP binaries?
On 2003-09-26, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Back to the DSP binaries: I remember that at one point there were DSP binaries included in the Linux kernel source. Is that still the case? AFAIK, this is one good reason that Debian does not distribute pristine kernel sources: the various binaries have been removed from the upstream kernel sources before packaging. Peace, Dylan
Re: coupling software documentation and political speech in the GFDL
On 2003-09-26, Bruce Perens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The conflict is around the need professed by FSF to hitch political speech to the cart of software documentation, and the fact that Debian, while it may have been designed in part to achive a social or political goal, was designed to deliver software rather than political speech. Sure, that's a nice analysis. What do you propose to do about it? Debian would be quite happy to distribute modifiable political speech (with suitable provisions for protecting the author's integrity), but the FSF has not shown any interest in considering that possibility; and most DDs posting here seem quite firm in the view that unmodifiable political speech is not allowed. Peace, Dylan
Re: Respect for Upstream Authors and Snippets of Interest
On 2003-09-27, Barak Pearlmutter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Based on long-standing Debian tradition and practice, this [removing non-modifiable texts] is decidedly and demonstrably not the case! Don and others were perhaps writing in haste. It is long-standing tradition; however, whether it should continue is another question. I haven't seen many people offering a principled defense of the practice. I would be very surprised if any DFSG-free text were removed from a Debian package. To my knowledge Debian has not only never removed a snippet from the source we distribute, but includes such snippets in the binaries, typically in ...-doc.deb. One example of this is GNU Emacs, which includes a bunch of such snippets, all of which are included---right now---in /usr/share/emacs/21.2/etc/. All of them are removable: sex.6 (which is of questionable taste), Please see the discussion Bug #154043. sex.6 has no copyright statement, and so can reasonably be supposed to be covered under the copyright of the whole package. GNU, CENSORSHIP (which is dated into such irrelevance that its inclusion is arguably embarrassing), LINUX-GNU (whose first sentence misleadingly reads The GNU project started 12 years ago), ... Already filed as bug #207932, marked as sarge-ignore (per the release manager's stated policy). If you want to offer a principled reason why this is not a bug, I'm eager to be convinced (although IANADD, so you don't need to convince me). COOKIES (whose relevance, copyright status, and humor value is unclear), Same situation as sex.6. Peace, Dylan
Re: FSF has stopped linking to Debian website
There wasn't supposed to be a link to the Debian web site on www.gnu.org, because it lists non-free software packages. Except in the Free Software Directory, we do not link to sites that specifically suggest the use of any non-free program, or that say how to get a copy of one. This policy has existed as long as our web site. The links to such sites were mistakes; I found out about them as a result of the recent discussion, but the removal of these links has nothing to do with that; we are just following our policy. If you find anything on www.gnu.org that doesn't follow this policy, please report it to [EMAIL PROTECTED] We sometimes mention well-known non-free programs and systems in passing, for instance in order to encourage and help people to use free software with them. The mention of Windows, VMS and BeOS should go no further than that. This applies also to mostly-free systems: we mention sometimes in order to encourage and help people to use free software with them.
Re: solution to GFDL and DSFG problem
Zedor Fuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I will both consent and interests of users and unoriginal. You can believe that personally You do not use any more abstract important cases, this list software is not be counted copyrightable. Please for the document by European copyright regime; which, can be; governed by here, in GPL covered literary work, with any compatible language you. I'm sorry, but I can't parse this, nor the remainder of your post.
Re: solution to GFDL and DSFG problem
On 2003-09-27, Peter S Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Zedor Fuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I will both consent and interests of users and unoriginal. You can believe that personally You do not use any more abstract important cases, this list software is not be counted copyrightable. Please for the document by European copyright regime; which, can be; governed by here, in GPL covered literary work, with any compatible language you. I'm sorry, but I can't parse this, nor the remainder of your post. Look at the name. Evidently someone is making a joke in poor taste about people whose native language is not English. Peace, Dylan
Re: Respect for Upstream Authors and Snippets of Interest
Barak Pearlmutter said on Fri, Sep 26, 2003 at 07:31:14PM -0600,: In a recent message to this list, RMS mentioned that people had stated that Debian would remove all non-modifiable but removable text from Debian packages: If Debian does not, somebody else will, and I guess that this is what RMS wants to prevent. includes a bunch of such snippets, all of which are included---right now---in /usr/share/emacs/21.2/etc/. All of them are removable: sex.6 (which is of questionable taste), GNU, CENSORSHIP (which is dated into such irrelevance that its inclusion is arguably embarrassing), LINUX-GNU (whose first sentence misleadingly reads The GNU project started 12 years ago), COOKIES (whose relevance, copyright status, and humor value is unclear), etc. I became aware of the concepts of free software, Debian, the FSF and the real meaning of 'free as in freedom' on doing some follow up reading after coming across other files in this very same directory (while using another distro). According to the consensus on this list, these files do not deserve to be in Debian, the OS. But, do please consider this situation :- If those files were modifiable / removable, and if somebody did, in fact, modify them, and I (or any other user) had come across that distro, I would never have turned to Debian. Please consider this fact while those packages / docs are being moved out to non-free. Debian does require the *right* to remove such snippets. Sure. Not only the snippets, but also the invariant sections in a GFDL'ed doc. But rights specific to Debian are not DFSG free. So the rights to modify will have to be granted to everybody. And one bad apple in that 'everybody', who would most likely have much money marketing power *might* remove the philosophy and political parts, and create their own distros bereft of the 'free as in freedom' 'pontifications'. ;) This problem cannot be wished away by dual licensing these docs under GPL. On the other hand, the Debian Community has very valid points to object to the GFDL, It will be difficult for Debian to make concessions specific to copyrights held by the FSF. Any body can use the invariant sections to include unpalatable messages. RMS has a point when he argues that it is not sufficient to have free software. We need to constantly remind everybody about those freedoms. To that end, it is essential to educate users and every body else about the freedoms, and utilise every opportunity to spread the word. Paving the way for removal of the political/ philosophical messages about freedom in software of the kind published by the FSF would be counter - productive to the free software community (and therefore, Debian itself) in the long run. I think the only way out would be to create a separate section for GFDl'ed docs with invariant sections named something like GFDL-doc or doc-semifree (or whatever - nonfree is harsh and unwarranted term). -- +~+ Mahesh T. Pai, LL.M., 'NANDINI', S. R. M. Road, Ernakulam, Cochin-682018, Kerala, India. http://in.geocities.com/paivakil +~+
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) a tapoté : 1. Is this MP3 file software or hardware? This is one is definitely worse: you explicitely point out which definition of the word software you think is the most usual, by asking to refer to this definition. Well, yes: I'm being upfront about in which domain I'm placing the question. Simply asking Is this MP3 software? doesn't give any meaningful data, because you can't control for bias on the part of the individual. Well, what you call controlling for bias is in fact controlling the data. I didn't say my question controlled for bias: I said you failed to do so, and presented several alternative questions which explicitly pulled the answer into certain domains. Have you some background in sociology? Minimal. Have you? I've got some statistics experience, though. You know, there's are interesting books that explain some acceptable methodology to follow when doing interviews and wanting meaningful data (in a little bit scientific and honnest way). There certainly are. For instance, controling for bias should be done once you already collected the data, not during this collection of _raw_ data, if you do not want to alter too much the _raw_ data. Well, yes: Is this MP3 software? seems to be a correct question: it does not propose any definition of software to follow, so the questioned one must answer by explaining partly what he considers to be software. Well, no. A good question to ask is: Give me some examples of software. Try to span the range of what 'software' might include. Is this corner case software, answer quick now, no long consideration or checking references is a horrid question. -Brian
Re: FSF has stopped linking to Debian website
* Richard Stallman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030927 17:16]: This policy has existed as long as our web site. The links to such sites were mistakes; I found out about them as a result of the recent discussion, but the removal of these links has nothing to do with that; we are just following our policy. If you find anything on www.gnu.org that doesn't follow this policy, please report it to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Well, we can say exactly the same for Debian, just substitute web site with Debian, links with inclusion, However, Debian discourages the usage of non-free software, but the FSF encourages the usage of non-free documentation. So, it's obvious who has more reasons to remove something. Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C
Re: solution to GFDL and DSFG problem
Quoting Dylan Thurston [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I'm sorry, but I can't parse this, nor the remainder of your post. Look at the name. Evidently someone is making a joke in poor taste about people whose native language is not English. I have another explaination: he changed his identity and address in order to bypass killfiles. Cheers, -- Jérôme Marant
committee for FSF-Debian discussion
The following persons have agreed to serve on a committee regarding the FSF - Debian discussion: Eben Moglen, Attorney for the Free Software Foundation. Henri Poole, Board member, Free Software Foundation. Benj. Mako Hill, Debian. I am seeking another candidate from the Debian side. A good candidate would be able to approach the discussion with a constructive and dispassionate attitude. These folks will engage in a discussion and bring the result back to their respective organizations for consideration. Thanks Bruce Perens
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
On 2003-09-27 12:37:52 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You must try to avoid bias when designing the data collection Clearly. This disagrees with your earlier comment. What is called here controlling for bias is indeed introducing bias -- a big one. I did not defend it. Please try not to continue arguing points already made. It makes for long and tedious exchanges. Avoiding bias means trying to collect _raw_ data. Cobblers does it. When you question someone, he should not be able to clearly know what answer you expect from him. Indeed. , else you may alias different factors and The biggest factor of bias here is the author (of the question) point of view. I disagree and say that it's impossible to know, but that is moot. waste a lot of money. It is about money here? Why talking about money here? It is usual to talk about data collection being cheap or expensive and use an equation of money for effort even when it is not paid. I have even seen that in French-language statistics texts. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
On Sat, Sep 27, 2003 at 11:05:52AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: On 2003-09-27 09:20:01 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Have you some background in sociology? Have you some background in psychology? He's French. His poststructuralism will trump your reproducible results at every turn. -- G. Branden Robinson| You could wire up a dead rat to a Debian GNU/Linux | DIMM socket and the PC BIOS memory [EMAIL PROTECTED] | test would pass it just fine. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Ethan Benson signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
On Sat, Sep 27, 2003 at 01:37:52PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote: Avoiding bias means trying to collect _raw_ data. There is no such thing as raw data in this context. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Respect for Upstream Authors and Snippets of Interest
Mahesh T. Pai [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I became aware of the concepts of free software, Debian, the FSF and the real meaning of 'free as in freedom' on doing some follow up reading after coming across other files in this very same directory (while using another distro). According to the consensus on this list, these files do not deserve to be in Debian, the OS. But, do please consider this situation :- If those files were modifiable / removable, and if somebody did, in fact, modify them, and I (or any other user) had come across that distro, I would never have turned to Debian. Please consider this fact while those packages / docs are being moved out to non-free. You are talking about an unlikely situation (that such a distro would gain huge market share) versus real concerns. Debian does require the *right* to remove such snippets. Sure. Not only the snippets, but also the invariant sections in a GFDL'ed doc. But rights specific to Debian are not DFSG free. So the rights to modify will have to be granted to everybody. And one bad apple in that 'everybody', who would most likely have much money marketing power *might* remove the philosophy and political parts, and create their own distros bereft of the 'free as in freedom' 'pontifications'. ;) This problem cannot be wished away by dual licensing these docs under GPL. Still couldn't remove the license. On the other hand, the Debian Community has very valid points to object to the GFDL, It will be difficult for Debian to make concessions specific to copyrights held by the FSF. Any body can use the invariant sections to include unpalatable messages. RMS has a point when he argues that it is not sufficient to have free software. We need to constantly remind everybody about those freedoms. To that end, it is essential to educate users and every body else about the freedoms, and utilise every opportunity to spread the word. Paving the way for removal of the political/ philosophical messages about freedom in software of the kind published by the FSF would be counter - productive to the free software community (and therefore, Debian itself) in the long run. Personally, I find it ironic that the FSF feel they have to use non-free means to spread the word about free software, and feel strongly enough about it to contaminate free manuals into non-free ones to do it. I think the only way out would be to create a separate section for GFDl'ed docs with invariant sections named something like GFDL-doc or doc-semifree (or whatever - nonfree is harsh and unwarranted term). There's all sorts of border cases in non-free, including `no commercial use'.
Re: Respect for Upstream Authors and Snippets of Interest
Can you provide a concrete example of such a snippet which is not under the licence applied to the entire package by the COPYRIGHT, COPYING, or AUTHORS file and restricts modification or removal? ^(2)^(1) (1) No, since such a snippet is *by definition* removable. (2) I *did* include concrete examples of snippets under a different license than the package which includes them. $ head -10 /usr/share/emacs/21.2/etc/GNU
Re: Respect for Upstream Authors and Snippets of Interest
Please do not attempt to make the Debian has no principles but the DFSG, and the DFSG is only a set of guidelines, therefore Debian has no principles and can do anything argument, because it's nonsense. Okay. I didn't make that argument, but as you request I will not make it in the future. (In fact, even without your request it seems unlikely that I would make such an argument.)
Re: Respect for Upstream Authors and Snippets of Interest
Dylan Thurston [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On 2003-09-27, Barak Pearlmutter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Based on long-standing Debian tradition and practice, this [removing non-modifiable texts] is decidedly and demonstrably not the case! It is long-standing tradition; however, whether it should continue is another question. I haven't seen many people offering a principled defense of the practice. Perhaps most people either felt that it was outside debian-legal's mandate to question such a long-standing practice, or that the practice is so obviously reasonable and common that it does not merit discussion. Already filed as bug #207932, marked as sarge-ignore (per the release manager's stated policy). If you want to offer a principled reason why this is not a bug, I'm eager to be convinced (although IANADD, so you don't need to convince me). Okay - that's not a bug because they're just little harmless snippets which are informative and interesting, are not functional, are *removable*, and merely accompany the package but do not constitute an integral part of it. By long-standing Debian tradition their inclusion is considered reasonable and proper, and not a violation of policy. Since this is the case, the burden of proof is upon you to demand such an serious change in Debian practice. Certainly their removal goes far beyond the GFDL-related consensus reached by debian-legal, which was concerned with non-removable materials. Peace, Luv+Reflection
Re: Respect for Upstream Authors and Snippets of Interest
Mahesh T. Pai [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Debian does require the *right* to remove such snippets. rights specific to Debian are not DFSG free. Absolutely Correct! When I said Debian does require the *right* to remove such snippets I did not mean to imply that the right might be exclusive to Debian. The right must be there for everyone. Debian requires that this right (available to everyone) be present. My statement was verbal shorthand for this.
Re: Bug#207932: Respect for Upstream Authors and Snippets of Interest
Barak Pearlmutter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Okay - that's not a bug because they're just little harmless snippets which are informative and interesting, are not functional, are *removable*, and merely accompany the package but do not constitute an integral part of it. By long-standing Debian tradition their inclusion is considered reasonable and proper, and not a violation of policy. Since this is the case, the burden of proof is upon you to demand such an serious change in Debian practice. Certainly their removal goes far beyond the GFDL-related consensus reached by debian-legal, which was concerned with non-removable materials. And for whatever it's worth, as long as I'm maintaining the packages, these files will almost certainly not be removed unless there's some overwhelmingly convincing reason, like debian-legal tells me it needs to be done, there's a successful General Resolution passed on a relevant topic, or they're removed from the upstream... In any case, presuming debian-legal becomes satisfied that I don't need to do anything about these files, I'll either mark this bug wonfix, or more likely, close it. (Just so there's no confusion, I am planning to accomodate whatever we decide with respect to the GFDLed files.) -- Rob Browning rlb @defaultvalue.org and @debian.org; previously @cs.utexas.edu GPG starting 2002-11-03 = 14DD 432F AE39 534D B592 F9A0 25C8 D377 8C7E 73A4
Re: Respect for Upstream Authors and Snippets of Interest
Mahesh T. Pai [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Debian does require the *right* to remove such snippets. rights specific to Debian are not DFSG free. Absolutely Correct! When I said Debian does require the *right* to remove such snippets I did not mean to imply that the right might be exclusive to Debian. The right must be there for everyone. Debian requires that this right (available to everyone) be present. My statement was verbal shorthand for this.
Re: Bug#207932: Respect for Upstream Authors and Snippets of Interest
On 2003-09-27, Rob Browning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In any case, presuming debian-legal becomes satisfied that I don't need to do anything about these files, I'll either mark this bug wonfix, or more likely, close it. Of course. When I filed the bug, I was under the impression that debian-legal had a concensus, but I may have acted too soon. Peace, Dylan
Re: Respect for Upstream Authors and Snippets of Interest
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Saturday 27 September 2003 03:31, Barak Pearlmutter wrote: Debian has a longstanding practice of respect for upstream authors. For instance, if the author of a GPLed program includes a statement in a README please if you like this program I'd very much appreciate it if you sent me $10, we do not remove such a statement. We even include offers by the author to sell the right to include the code in a proprietary program. To my knowledge, in all the many thousands of packages in Debian, such statements have never been removed! Even though Debian might find such an offer repulsive, we respect our upstream authors enough to include them. Fair enough. However, all of these statements are removable, and their modification is probably not prohibited by the license. People who say that such snippets have no place in Debian, and constitute violations of the DFSG, are attempting to impose a very foolish consistency. And Jan Schumacher's statement: A /non-modifiable/ text could not be included in Debian, a /modifiable/ one would most likely be. is a load of hooey. Inclusion of snippets is not a violation of the DFSG. Such an overly-literal interpretation of the rules is precisely why we call them D-F-S-***GUIDELINES***! Because we use common sense in their application. That is what (I hope) all participants are doing. I don't think, though, that we have been talking about little snippets, exactly. Do you believe unmodifiable essays like the GNU Manifesto could be accepted in Debian with the DFSG as they stand? Regards Jan -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/dhpz4cR0MEP0sUQRAkqAAJ91b3MgnHHEBVuhCOVqIH947sOJBwCfZsmg IMEvy3he3JWh51dR64MaDvw= =hvPC -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: A possible GFDL comporomise: a proposal
Fedor Zuev wrote: First, try to answer to several simply questions. FYI, these are *my* answers, not necessarily everyone's answers. 0) Is printed Emacs Manual in bookstore a software or hardware? The lump of paper and ink is hardware. Including the various splotches of ink resulting from printing press problems. But the 'text of the manual', that abstract entity embodied in the manual, is software. 1) Is Emacs Manual recorded on CD-Audio a software or hardware? The bits are software, the lump of plastic is hardware. 2) Is Debian/main printed as book a software or hardware? The hunk of paper is hardware, the 'text' in it is software. 3) Why? What differs from 0,1? Nothing. 4) Is Debian/main printed into punch-cards a software or hardware? The physical punch cards are hardware, the data on them is software. 5) Why? What differs from 0,1,2? Nothing. 6) Is Debian/main written on CD-ROM a software or hardware? The lump of plastic is hardware. The data on it is software. 7) Why? What differs from 0, 1,2,4? Nothing. 8)Is Debian logo written on [cover of] the same CD-ROM software or hardware? Neither, really, but... The printed cover with its actual copy of the logo, possibly with some dirt, etc., is hardware. The logo as a copyrightable entity embodied on the cover is software. 9) Why? What differs from 0, 1, 2, 4, 6? Nothing. 10) Is Debian installation, hardcoded into embedded system software or hardware? This is usually called firmware. Again, the lump of silicon and metal circuits is hardware, and the data hardcoded into it is software. 11) Why? What differs from 0, 1, 2, 4, 6, 8? Nothing. To answer a question you didn't ask, the *design spec* for a piece of hardware is software. The hardware itself isn't. Get the picture? This is the extremely useful definition of software I use. (Software is a more useful term for discrete/digital data than for continuous/analog data, because continuous/analog data can't be reproduced without data loss, making the software inseperable from the hardware to some degree.) -- Nathanael Nerode neroden at gcc.gnu.org http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html
Re: License requirements for DSP binaries?
Glenn Maynard said: We can interpret DFSG#2 to mean the form closest to source that still exists if we want, but it's extremely questionable to try to interpret preferred form for modification as preferred form for modification, or any form, no matter how unreasonable it is to edit, if the preferred form for modification has been lost. I interpret it as prefered form for modification, out of those forms which exist. (I think it may actually be specifically the preferred form for modification of the licensor, or of the distributor. This would be relevant in cases where there is some argument about which of several existing forms is the preferred form.) I would reject GPL'ed items where the authors deliberately destroyed all copies of their original source files not because preferred form for modifcation was not available -- but rather because the authors would clearly be trying to evade the intent of the GPL using a technicality, and that indicates unreliable authors acting in bad faith, who I wouldn't want to touch with a ten-foot pole. The actual case where machine-code-as-source has come is in ROMs for old games where the source code was lost many years ago, but where it's still useful and feasible to edit the ROM images. But this discussion is really not relevant to the issue at hand, because In any case, I don't think anyone has actually claimed that IBM has lost the source. Asking them for it is probably the best thing to do next. Absolutely. --Nathanael
Re: Respect for Upstream Authors and Snippets of Interest
Jan Schumacher [EMAIL PROTECTED] (using an expired key) writes: Fair enough. However, all of these statements are removable, and their modification is probably not prohibited by the license. The flow of the argument was: one example of Debian's respect for upstream authors is not removing these requests and offers. If they were unremovable, this would have made a poor example. Do you believe unmodifiable essays like the GNU Manifesto could be accepted in Debian with the DFSG as they stand? This is not a matter of belief. This is longstanding, and heretofore uncontroversial, accepted Debian practice. The GNU manifesto is in Debian right now, right where it belongs: /usr/share/emacs/21.2/etc/GNU and analogous locations in emacs20 and xemacs. The Debian ftpmasters are doubtless quite aware of such snippets, and have no problems with them. *Changing* this tradition would be a big deal. If there were a package whose bulk consisted of the GNU manifesto and related materials, I think people might have some problems with that. Certainly I would. That would also not fit the definition of a snippet I gave, which was an attempt to explain current Debian practice.
Re: Respect for Upstream Authors and Snippets of Interest
Mahesh T. Pai [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Barak Pearlmutter said on Fri, Sep 26, 2003 at 07:31:14PM -0600,: In a recent message to this list, RMS mentioned that people had stated that Debian would remove all non-modifiable but removable text from Debian packages: If Debian does not, somebody else will, and I guess that this is what RMS wants to prevent. I'm willing to bet someone _does_ remove those sections. How many restrictions are you willing to put on the good guys in order to get the bad guys? If those files were modifiable / removable, and if somebody did, in fact, modify them, and I (or any other user) had come across that distro, I would never have turned to Debian. It's not like you'd find out about Debian from the FSF, anymore. I think the evidence is that they are removable, and again I'd bet that someone does remove them. one bad apple in that 'everybody' One bad apple in that 'everybody' might distribute a broken GCC that couldn't compile the kernel or other major chunks of code, leaving the users to use DRM-enabled versions of the kernel. They could even have the only version of GCC that would compile a kernel for that architecture. There's a lot of things we could do to stop this, but most of them would put too much trouble on the good guys (i.e. be non-free). I think the only way out would be to create a separate section for GFDl'ed docs with invariant sections named something like GFDL-doc or doc-semifree (or whatever - nonfree is harsh and unwarranted term). There are licenses in nonfree ranging from [...] don't even think about running nm on this binary to (one semifamous, now relicensed) here's the source, do whatever you want with it, just pet a cat sometime. If you want a semifree, there's a lot more stuff that should be moved there. I hardly see what good drawing another line between 'semifree' and 'nonfree' will do, though. -- __ Sign-up for your own personalized E-mail at Mail.com http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup CareerBuilder.com has over 400,000 jobs. Be smarter about your job search http://corp.mail.com/careers