date:20030927

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

2003-09-27 Thread Don Armstrong

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]

2003-09-27 Thread Josselin Mouette

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?

2003-09-27 Thread D. Starner

 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

2003-09-27 Thread Manoj Srivastava

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

2003-09-27 Thread Andrew Suffield

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

2003-09-27 Thread Richard Stallman

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

2003-09-27 Thread Peter S Galbraith

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

2003-09-27 Thread Mahesh T. Pai

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

2003-09-27 Thread Brian T. Sniffen

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

2003-09-27 Thread Andreas Barth

* 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

2003-09-27 Thread Jérôme Marant

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

2003-09-27 Thread Bruce Perens

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

2003-09-27 Thread Branden Robinson

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

2003-09-27 Thread Andrew Suffield

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

2003-09-27 Thread Peter S Galbraith

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

2003-09-27 Thread Rob Browning

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

2003-09-27 Thread Jan Schumacher

-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

2003-09-27 Thread Nathanael Nerode

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?

2003-09-27 Thread Nathanael Nerode

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