Re: A possible approach in solving the FDL problem
Peter S Galbraith wrote: I feel that GPL will be offered next in sacrifice to the sacred cow. Of course, GPL is not *absolutely* free! I agree with you. I'm also afraid that the next release of the GPL [snip] Maybe in your world it does. WE have managed quite well without worrying about market share. This would be a good point if it will be true. But, GPL software is essential part of Debian. So Debian did not managed yet. Well, I do not know, what WE means... What you have missed is that freedom is easily traded away, but only The freedom can be traded. That is important point. Except that we are resisting that trade, while you are cheer-leading it. I don't hear a lot of voices against GPL in main, so better if you will replace we are with I am. -- Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov
Re: Should our documentation be free? (Was Re: Inconsistencies in our approach)
MJ Ray wrote: Sergey V. Spiridonov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] There is a definition which says that documentation can be a part of the software, but I failed to find a definition which makes no difference between software and documentation. This was a nice try to change the point under discussion. It was not claimed that software and documentation are homonyms, AFAIK. Instead, Are you sure? Quote Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED]: If we are to treat documentation any differently than software, we should first define a ruberic that distinguishes software from documentation. In all previous discussions, we were unable to do this. -- Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov
Re: A possible approach in solving the FDL problem
Anthony DeRobertis wrote: On Sunday, Aug 10, 2003, at 18:41 US/Eastern, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote: Specific differences from the DFSG should allow inariants in the documentation [...] Probably also Cover Texts BTW, are you aware that probably still wouldn't make the GFDL a free documentation license? There are still problems with, e.g., transparent forms. If you meant problem with encrypted filesystems, this question was already answered. -- Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov
Re: A possible approach in solving the FDL problem
Josselin Mouette wrote: Le mer 13/08/2003 à 14:20, Sergey Spiridonov a écrit : Yes, encrypted system will be a problem if I will try to sell encrypted FDL books, so that one can read, but not copy or modify his copy. That was probably the intention, but the wording makes it unclear. Sorry it was quite clear for me. However, everything depends on how the *software* author (not the license author) reads it. Without explicit clarification from the author of the FDL'ed stuff, the licensing is non-free. Can you please explain what is unclear? Who is software author? Do you intend to say documentation author? -- Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov
unsubscribe
Re: A possible approach in solving the FDL problem
O Xoves, 14 de Agosto de 2003 ás 09:05:04 +0200, Sergey V. Spiridonov escribía: That was probably the intention, but the wording makes it unclear. Sorry it was quite clear for me. The GFDL, as it is worded now, would forbid me sending you a GPG-encrypted mail containing a GFDL-licensed work, even if you could decrypt it. Or would forbid me storing a GFDL-licensed work in my encrypted home directory. -- Tarrío (Compostela)
Re: A possible approach in solving the FDL problem
Op di 12-08-2003, om 16:05 schreef Branden Robinson: On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 11:45:12AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: No; also because I feel that there is a difference in purpose, which may warrant a difference in license policy. So name the difference. It's hard to describe it, as you already know. I'll eventually come up with one (I hope), but the fact that I can't come up with a definition right now doesn't mean you and I don't understand the difference between 'computer program' and 'documentation'. It's a /feeling/. Hence, I said 'I /feel/ that there is a difference'. -- Wouter Verhelst Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org An expert can usually spot the difference between a fake charge and a full one, but there are plenty of dead experts. -- National Geographic Channel, in a documentary about large African beasts. signature.asc Description: Dit berichtdeel is digitaal ondertekend
Re: A possible approach in solving the FDL problem
On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 02:36:36 +0200, Sergey V Spiridonov [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Stephen Ryan wrote: You have taken the one sacred cow in the entire place here, and have suggested that it is merely a convenience, and that we should have a barbecue next Friday afternoon. Free enough -- them's fightin' words. I feel that GPL will be offered next in sacrifice to the sacred cow. Of course, GPL is not *absolutely* free! Why is it so hard to see why a license to use a work is treated differently? The license determines the terms I am offered something, as opposed to what I am offered. The freedoms I care about are my ability to use, modify, and share my modifications (or not, if I do not publish the changes). I care about the freedom to tailor the behaviour of the software, to port it to the zaurus, and to be able to share my changes, and be able to document my changed program when I share it. All these freedoms of using and sharing software do not entail that the terms I was given the software under be changed; and indeed, the rights of users downstream rely on the terms of distribution not being modified. Though I fail to see the distinction between code, data, and documentation; I see no such ambiguity when it comes to distinguishing the license from any of those. manoj -- Lax behaviour, broken observances and dubious chastity - these are of no great benefit. 312 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 approach in solving the FDL problem
Peter S Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I agree with you. I'm also afraid that the next release of the GPL won't mean what the current one does. I'm also afraid that the FSF will sacrifice it in the name of some exchange. If that happens I pity all those that have license their with the words or any later version. I certainly have stopped doing so. My level of trust have gone way down. You have to decide whether the risk of having your code used in a program you consider to be not quite free is worse than the risk of your code, and maybe other people's code with it, becoming unusable due to most of the world moving to GPLv3. If there are a large number of people contributing to a project I think it's better if at least most of them license their contributions with the words or any later version. That way, if GPLv3 turns out to be a good licence the maintainers can switch to using it without having to get permission from a huge number of people. Edmund
Re: Inconsistencies in our approach
On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 21:08:10 +0900 (IRKST), Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: MS In the example I posted before, the, the documentation of the MS probe lists the access methods and protocols that one can talk to MS the probe; this is the documentation part. The sensor parses the MS same bits to determine the capabilities of the probe, and MS publishes that as data to a central trading service. And where the problem? This list is clearly not a software, it is a data. I agree that there are data formats equally suitable for reading by human and by program reader. After all, it is basically same thing. Why is it merely data, and not documentation? Indeed, that list is part of a larger section in the sole documentation of the probe. And I fail to see why it is not software. The xslt transform converts the list into a series of statements that are then executed. MS The very same bits are read by the generic probe handler, and with MS an xsl transform, is handed a series of instructions to deploy the MS probe. In all these use cases, exactly the same set of bits is MS used. I do not understand. These series of instructions all listed in documentation mentioned above? Indeed. They are essentially interpreted as a series of function calls, implementation of which is in a separate library. And these series of instructions all published as data to a central trading service? Nope. You are mixing two separate operations; one in which the list is read as data, and the capabilities of the probe thus provided are then published to the trading service; the second in which a request comes in for data, and the deployment module reads the list and executes the series of instructions to deploy the probe, and transmit the instrumentation data back to the requestor. Or they just bundled to a tail of the file (or individual records in the file) for further burden? They are not at the tail of the file. Or they appears only in generic probe handler software? The probe handler software runs a xslt transfor on the list, and converts them into a form that can be exec'ed in sequence. No, the specific instructions are in the same list (the one taht is the documentation, as well as the data for the trading service). MS I am not talking about bundles -- I am talking about a the same MS bits. manoj -- ! A good move !! An excellent move !!! An I.A. Horowitz move E.C.O. 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: Should our documentation be free? (Was Re: Inconsistencies in our approach)
Sergey V. Spiridonov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: MJ Ray wrote: This was a nice try to change the point under discussion. It was not claimed that software and documentation are homonyms, AFAIK. Instead, Are you sure? Yes. Quote Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED]: If we are to treat documentation any differently than software, we should first define a ruberic that distinguishes software from documentation. In all previous discussions, we were unable to do this. This quote does not claim that they are identical. Being able to distinguish software from documentation in order to treat them differently would mean that the two sets documentation and software are exclusive. For if they are not exclusive, any documentation that is software would not need a new set of guidelines to be in debian, ergo there is no need to treat them differently. However, if it can be demonstrated that they can be distinguished, it gives form to the difference claims. The negation (they have a non-empty intersection) is not the same as saying that they are identical. I think this is not complicated, so I hope that I have been detailed enough in explaining it. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ jabber://[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: A possible approach in solving the FDL problem
Sergey V. Spiridonov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Peter S Galbraith wrote: I feel that GPL will be offered next in sacrifice to the sacred cow. Of course, GPL is not *absolutely* free! I agree with you. I'm also afraid that the next release of the GPL [snip] Maybe in your world it does. WE have managed quite well without worrying about market share. This would be a good point if it will be true. But, GPL software is essential part of Debian. So Debian did not managed yet. Well, I do not know, what WE means... I'm sorry, I thought you were talking about the GFDL? We, Debian, have done quite well without worrying about the distro's market share. If you mean to say that we are riding on the market share of GPL software that is not of our doing, then you are quite right. But this is _GPL'ed_ software which seems to be doing quite well without sacrificing its license for more market share. You can't possibly argue that GFDL documentation has played a role in increasing GNU market share? What you have missed is that freedom is easily traded away, but only The freedom can be traded. That is important point. Except that we are resisting that trade, while you are cheer-leading it. I don't hear a lot of voices against GPL in main, so better if you will replace we are with I am. Are are implying that I am against the GPL? If so, read what I said over again. Peter
Re: A possible approach in solving the FDL problem
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Peter S Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I agree with you. I'm also afraid that the next release of the GPL won't mean what the current one does. I'm also afraid that the FSF will sacrifice it in the name of some exchange. If that happens I pity all those that have license their with the words or any later version. I certainly have stopped doing so. My level of trust have gone way down. You have to decide whether the risk of having your code used in a program you consider to be not quite free is worse than the risk of your code, and maybe other people's code with it, becoming unusable due to most of the world moving to GPLv3. True, but I plan to be around to evaluate that license myself. If there are a large number of people contributing to a project I think it's better if at least most of them license their contributions with the words or any later version. That way, if GPLv3 turns out to be a good licence the maintainers can switch to using it without having to get permission from a huge number of people. You are quite right for large projects. For small projects, I have lost sufficient confidence in the FSF to do that. Peter
Re: A possible approach in solving the FDL problem
On Wednesday, Aug 13, 2003, at 03:17 US/Eastern, Branden Robinson wrote: On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 07:51:56PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: Because this isn't the forum for discussing the removal of non-free? And because the discussion about removing non-free has to wait until the shelved[0] amendment about changing founding documents, which was/is waiting for the now-completed voting amendment? Manoj's amendment wasn't just about changing founding documents; it introduced the concept, which you won't find in the current version of the Constitution (or any previous draft). I agree with you. However, the secretary at the time determined that founding documents had magical super powers[0], and the constitution says that the secretary gets to interpret the thing, so... And, AFAIK, there were never a general resolution to overrule the secretary, so his decision, wrong as it may be, stands. From a Constitutional perspective, the Social Contract and DFSG are no different than any other nontechnical document the Project might issue under 4.1.5 and in fact are specifically the things Ian Jackson had in mind when he wrote that clause of the Constitution. I'm sure that's true, especially since it even mentions documents relating to our definition of free software. However, we're getting off-topic for -legal and more into -project territory. Agreed. Only bcc'd to -legal. PS: Does the constitution even say we have to follow the social contract? [0] Of the constitution-overriding type
Re: A possible approach in solving the FDL problem
On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, Jimmy Kaplowitz wrote: JKOn Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 07:50:32PM +0900, Fedor Zuev wrote: JKAccording FDL, You may not use technical measures to JK obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the _copies_ JK _you_ _make_ _or_ _distribute_. You has no obligations regarding JK you own copy of document. You only cannot distribute document and JK limit access to it in the same time. JKHowever, if you _make_ a copy by using the cp command on your own JKsystem, you are subject to the rule you quoted, and you can't put it on JKan encrypted filesystem. Again. You demand from licensce to cure a problem, nonexistent under any jurisdiction I heard about. Computer is a single tangible medium, and any internal technological process whithin it, you aware or even not aware about (How about, for example, a dynamic memory regeneration? Hundreds of thousands copies of RAM per second btw) is completely irrelevant to the copyright, and, consequently, licences. JKIt's also possible to interpret _make_ to cover JKa download initiated by you, since a new copy of the program is JKcertainly being made. No. At the moment of download you not have the copy of licence that shipped with the package. So, you cannot agree or not agree with this licence to get or not get the right to make copy. For initial download you anyway need an another source of right. Distributor consent, usually. Distributor has this right, according to _his_ copy of licence. And licence do not demand from a distributor to control medium of downloader`s copy. Licence only demand not to encrypt work himself.
Re: A possible approach in solving the FDL problem
On Wednesday, Aug 13, 2003, at 08:20 US/Eastern, Sergey Spiridonov wrote: Yes, encrypted system will be a problem if I will try to sell encrypted FDL books, so that one can read, but not copy or modify his copy. It seems that some people completely misunderstood FDL, or just don't read it... Possibly. Personally I've read it, several times, and I'm pretty sure most regulars here have. Now, I think a much bigger problem on this mailing list is people who have not read the list archives.
Re: A possible approach in solving the FDL problem (joke)
On Wednesday, Aug 13, 2003, at 10:31 US/Eastern, MJ Ray wrote: This is not my understanding of the word or in that sentence of the FDL. Are you sure that you have it right? Possibly there is a virus going around that changes all occurrences of or to and in displayed license texts. That would explain a lot. Hmmm, I wonder, if someone were to write a virus that were to detect when an EULA was displayed, and change the display (e.g., add up top you may either accept these terms or use this programs as allowed in Title 17 USC) what would the legal effect be, assuming click-wrap licenses are valid at all?
Re: A possible approach in solving the FDL problem
On Wednesday, Aug 13, 2003, at 13:51 US/Eastern, Fedor Zuev wrote: Of course, you can claim that the very special definition of software As an aside, I'd like to note that several reputable dictionaries agree with the definition of software being the part of the computer that is not hardware. So it's not my very own special definition; quite the opposite, its a common usage of the word. But all this does not help you to restrict other peoples to not use this defintion outside the scope of DFSG. That's correct. I can't. I can't stop anyone from using a word however they please. I can stop people from saying inflammable to mean flammable either. That's one of those things about living in a (semi-)free society: People are allowed to speak as they chose. And it is very probable that people will use this definftion in any context, even very harmful. Then those contexts need to be more careful either in defining terms they use or in selecting better terms. Software was originally defined in opposition to hardware; anyone who wrote their copyright laws assuming another usage without defining it is the real problem here. So, you encourage, intentionaly or not, the harmful for users interpretation of copyright. This harm (_real_ harm, there are plenty of cases when propietary content vendors use the 'everything digital is software' argument) And I doubt that has anything to do with Debian. You can not ignore the existence of a laws even if you will try twice as hard. If we were ignoring laws, we could just declare Copyright is dead. Governments are obsolete. Technology conquers all. Subscribe to Wired! and disband -legal. No matter how -legal (and most of the computing community, for that matter) defines software, in any sane country, its your actions that will land you in jail, not the DFSG.
Re: A possible approach in solving the FDL problem
On Wednesday, Aug 13, 2003, at 15:37 US/Eastern, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote: Freedom has a value because it is convenient and useful to be free. Nothing else. There is no need to have a freedom which can't be used, and sometimes we can agree to give away a bit of our freedom, which we can't (or do not want) utilize in exchange for other values. I disagree strongly that freedom is only a means. However, I think thats sort of beside the point. Debian demands that no one needs to agree not to utilize particular freedoms by using software from main. We, through the social contract, promise that to our users. Those unalienable freedoms are spelled out in the DFSG. The GFDL alienates at least one of the freedoms we guarantee to our users in our Social Contract; therefor, it can not go in main.
Re: A possible approach in solving the FDL problem
On Wednesday, Aug 13, 2003, at 15:57 US/Eastern, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote: People wanting FDL in main want to distribute non-free stuff. Hm... Can you prove it? Software in non-free is clearly non-free. While FDL seems to be disputable on this list. The question of GFDL with invariant sections was settled long ago. If you take a poll of this list, you'll find most everyone agrees that is non-free. I believe the question of the GFDL w/o invariant sections has similarly been settled. There are only a few people, yourself included, who seem like they might disagree with one or both of the above conclusions. Please go ahead and look at the list archives and count. So distributing non-free is a good thing? Do you really think, that you help users when you distribute non-free? That is a question for another thread on another mailing list. So is the related question of: If yes, does that benefit outweigh the harm (if any) to free software and/or our integrity/principles/etc.
Re: A possible approach in solving the FDL problem
On Wednesday, Aug 13, 2003, at 18:19 US/Eastern, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote: Note, there still can be special rare cases, where such a freedom is really needed. I'm calling you on this one: I say there are not, other than selling software. Back it up or drop it. A good example will be the license of Guile or license of the run-time units of the GNU Ada compiler. So, if those things were under strait GPL, by your usefulness definition, they wouldn't be DFSG-free, because they don't grant the freedom to create proprietary works?
Re: A possible approach in solving the FDL problem
On Wednesday, Aug 13, 2003, at 20:36 US/Eastern, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote: I feel that GPL will be offered next in sacrifice to the sacred cow. Of course, GPL is not *absolutely* free! Explain exactly how the GPL could possibly violate the DFSG considering that the DFSG says we consider it free? gotten with blood, sweat, and tears. Those who have paid for their You can buy a bit freedom for money, Freedom is a birthright. If you have to pay for it, you're not free. This is quite off-topic for this list, of course.
Re: A possible approach in solving the FDL problem
On Thursday, Aug 14, 2003, at 02:47 US/Eastern, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote: There are still problems with, e.g., transparent forms. If you meant problem with encrypted filesystems, this question was already answered. a) I didn't. Check the archive for a long discussion. b) As far as encrypted file systems, the only answer I see is that the GFDL is non-free.
Re: A possible approach in solving the FDL problem
Peter S Galbraith wrote: But this is _GPL'ed_ software which seems to be doing quite well without sacrificing its license for more market share. You can't possibly argue GPL takes away some freedoms. Can you argue this point? If not, then why are you using GPL? GPL makes barbecue from your cow. If you do not want to trade your freedom, you should not use GPL. Are are implying that I am against the GPL? If so, read what I said over again. Are you implying that I am against the freedom? If so, read what I said over again. -- Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov
Re: A possible approach in solving the FDL problem
On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, Bernhard R. Link wrote: BRL* Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] [030812 22:56]: BRL Because everyting is software declarations does not really BRL serve for promotion of any freedom, but, contrary, only for stealing BRL freedom existed under the law. BRLPlease note that there can be different definitions which vary by BRLtheir field of use. (For extreme examples see the definition of BRLring in mathematics). BRL Of course, there is some differences between countries, but BRL they are relatively small regarding this subject. Under software BRL copyright user get far more restrictions and far less rights than BRL under any other flavor of copyright. BRLPlease note that most other jurisdictions normaly have their laws BRLwritten in other languages, too. And in most countries the words BRLin the law have a slightly different meaning than in normal use. BRL(On example is murder. At least in Germany any form of killing BRL is refered to as Mord(murder) in normal usage, whereas Mord BRL in the sense of law is much more limited (intententions, lower motives and such things)). BRLSo while most jurisdictions may have different terms and some BRLmay even state the term software in their laws (I guess most BRLwill more likely take an more exact wording and only the BRLcommentary refer to software), we still have to find a suitable BRLdefinition which of its meanings we want it to mean. All above is very reasonable and wise. But I still not understand, what you want to say me. Sorry, my English is very bad. Please note that there is substantional difference between word may (or can) and word is. You read to me long lecture on how the world may be arranged. Very accurate lecture, without doubt. But I not talked about how world may be arranged. I talked about how the world _is_ arranged. According to my poor knowledge, of course. You see any factual mistake in my statements? Let's discuss it. BRLAnd just saying all digital data is software is the easiest and BRLmost elegant meaning in this context. In which context? BRL In USA (and most of EU countries) you can legally rent copy BRL of any copyrighted book - but not a copy of computer program. BRLI don't know about the whole EU, but I think I heared most BRLclauses to prefent renting might be illegal in Germany. (At BRLleast noone should be able to stop you from renting a disc with BRLprograms on it, don't know if anyone might allowed to copy it to BRLit's RAM). Why do you think so? AFAIK, article 69c, item 3 of German copyright law (I have English translation of revision from 1998 year) clearly states that distribution of computer program in the form of rent is a exclusive right of rightholder, even for the copies, rightfully owned by someone else. Unlike any other copyrighted works. This exclusive right is demanded by European Copyright directive, and I doubt that it removed since 1998 year. May be you heard about another similar subject: distinction between sale and rent, and a habit of some prorpietary software vendors to state that sale of they software is really the rent? Sale, of course, is not a rent and everyone who said othervise is a liar. BRLIt think the most important difference between computer programs BRLand non-computer-programs here in Germany is the ability to BRLprotect non-human-generated pieced (like compiled computer BRLprograms). Everything Printed books copyrighted from the very beginning of copyright regime. There a many more important differences. For example, software copyright is a single case, where set of exclusive right interferes not only with distribution and dissemenation, but also with normal use of lawfully asquired copy of work.
Re: A possible approach in solving the FDL problem
Peter S Galbraith wrote: That's mostly correct. If only the GFDL did only that. But it also forces derived works to include the unvariant sections. Also include Of course it is, otherwise one can produce a derived work to exclude invariant section. This would be a hole. -- Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov
Re: A possible approach in solving the FDL problem
Sergey V. Spiridonov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Peter S Galbraith wrote: But this is _GPL'ed_ software which seems to be doing quite well without sacrificing its license for more market share. You can't possibly argue GPL takes away some freedoms. Can you argue this point? If not, then why are you using GPL? GPL makes barbecue from your cow. If you do not want to trade your freedom, you should not use GPL. The GPL takes away the freedom to redistribute works as closed sources or unmodifiable. But it enforces the freedoms we want. It protects the developer from other developers redistributing work that cannot be used by the initial developer. It protects the user by giving them the right to fork the code if something happens to the developer. The GFDL lets other developers redistribute a fork that cannot be folded back upstream by giving them the tool of using a poison pill (invariant section). The GFDL does not add any protection or freedom for the users compared to the GPL. Are are implying that I am against the GPL? If so, read what I said over again. Are you implying that I am against the freedom? If so, read what I said over again. If I understand correctly, you don't mind trading some aspects of freedom which we consider crucial in exchange for something that you think will buy market share. This is off-topic and pointless. Peter
Re: A possible approach in solving the FDL problem
Sergey V. Spiridonov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Peter S Galbraith wrote: That's mostly correct. If only the GFDL did only that. But it also forces derived works to include the unvariant sections. Also include Of course it is, otherwise one can produce a derived work to exclude invariant section. This would be a hole. A hole in what? In the fact that the GFDL allow invariant sections? That's a circular argument. Why is it important that a derived work maintain this secondary text? Why are distributors given the right to add anything that anyone downstream cannot remove? What if you were not allowed to modify it, but you were allowed to remove it? And you clipped what I said about including the text of the license. What is gained by that outside of the scope of dead-tree paper books? Peter
Re: A possible approach in solving the FDL problem
Anthony DeRobertis wrote: There are still problems with, e.g., transparent forms. If you meant problem with encrypted filesystems, this question was already answered. a) I didn't. Check the archive for a long discussion. Well, most of problems were on how people interpret You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute. One who use your arguments can say: it is prohibited to have firewall or password checking on the PC with FDL documentation. It is quite clear that it is not the intended way to enforce FDL. Since it is not fixed till now, I conclude there is no bug here. Another point can be that bugfix is in work... b) As far as encrypted file systems, the only answer I see is that the GFDL is non-free. Please, check the archive. -- Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov
Re: A possible approach in solving the FDL problem
On Thu, 14 Aug 2003, Wouter Verhelst wrote: WVOp wo 13-08-2003, om 14:20 schreef Sergey Spiridonov: WV Yes, encrypted system will be a problem if I will try to sell encrypted WV FDL books, so that one can read, but not copy or modify his copy. WVWhat if you'd want to create a custom Debian installation CD which WVimmediately contains some passwords on it, so that you'd have an easy WVtime installing a lot of systems? WVYou may want to protect those passwords by encrypting them somehow; and WVif encrypting the CD is the easiest way, you'd probably do so. WVUnfortunately, if you'd be distributing those CD's to some people WVso that they could help you install the systems, you'd WVtechnically be in breach of the FDL's terms. Yes, of course. And, I think, not just technically. Please note, that your scheme differs from the well-known scheme of selling encrypted books in exactly one point: assumed fair intention of distributor. Bud fair intention is not a thing you can define in licence.
Re: A possible approach in solving the FDL problem
Sergey V. Spiridonov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Anthony DeRobertis wrote: There are still problems with, e.g., transparent forms. If you meant problem with encrypted filesystems, this question was already answered. a) I didn't. Check the archive for a long discussion. Well, most of problems were on how people interpret You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute. You didn't look back far enough. Try late winter 2003, as well as early fall 2002, when we were arguing about the draft version. I think that was the last time someone raised this here... Either way, no, there's a serious problem with the fact that I can't usefully license this whatzit I've written in MS Word under the GFDL. I also cannot license any sound file under the GFDL, and there are big problems with images and composite works, particularly if they use text as graphical components. The FSF considers that a feature; many here consider it non-free. The preferred form for modification rule is quite reasonable; a list of open formats is not. Among other problems, it will fail to adapt to advances in technology. The prohibition against use of encrypted filesystems is intended to prohibit taking a GFDL-document even further non-free by abuse of the US DMCA; unfortunately, it steps too far and is non-free itself. One who use your arguments can say: it is prohibited to have firewall or password checking on the PC with FDL documentation. Yes. It is quite clear that it is not the intended way to enforce FDL. This message is licensed to you under the GNU FDL, with no Cover Texts and one Invariant Section, consisting only of the irrelevancies you have stated. As the author and sole copyright holder for the text I have written, I inform you that I intend the interpretation of You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute. in section two to prohibit use of the following measures without restriction or limitation: * Password-based login mechanisms. * Filesystem mandatory access controls. * Single-direction computer monitors, together with attendant walls, intervening space, buildings, trees, etc. You will of course all immediately provide me with access to your machines or delete this message, right? No? Well, then, I suppose I provide a license under the MIT/X11 license to the Debian Project as well. Since it is not fixed till now, I conclude there is no bug here. Another point can be that bugfix is in work... Wait, you're using the existence of a problem as evidence it isn't a bug? But if you're wrong, then maybe they're working on fixing it? b) As far as encrypted file systems, the only answer I see is that the GFDL is non-free. Please, check the archive. Hunh. You're either a moderately clever troll or a totally gormless knuckledragger. You can safely assume that Anthony, like all of the regulars here, has read every message sent to this list since before the release of GNU FDL 1.2, and discussed it for most of that time. Seriously, go read everything from about September 2002 through the present, and you'll see that all of the arguments you're making have been raised and dismissed. This will take you a long time. It took the rest of us almost a year, so you will receive little sympathy. -Brian License: GNU Free Documentation License Version 1.2, November 2002 Copyright (C) 2000,2001,2002 Free Software Foundation, Inc. 59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307 USA Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed. 0. PREAMBLE The purpose of this License is to make a manual, textbook, or other functional and useful document free in the sense of freedom: to assure everyone the effective freedom to copy and redistribute it, with or without modifying it, either commercially or noncommercially. Secondarily, this License preserves for the author and publisher a way to get credit for their work, while not being considered responsible for modifications made by others. This License is a kind of copyleft, which means that derivative works of the document must themselves be free in the same sense. It complements the GNU General Public License, which is a copyleft license designed for free software. We have designed this License in order to use it for manuals for free software, because free software needs free documentation: a free program should come with manuals providing the same freedoms that the software does. But this License is not limited to software manuals; it can be used for any textual work, regardless of subject matter or whether it is published as a printed book. We recommend this License principally for works whose purpose is instruction or reference. 1. APPLICABILITY AND DEFINITIONS This License
Re: Inconsistencies in our approach
On Wednesday, Aug 13, 2003, at 03:15 US/Eastern, Fedor Zuev wrote: If the package gets extra input information as a part of using it _and_ a result substantially[*] varies, depending this input information _and_ these variations at least partially controlled by statements in package[**] - package is a software. So, if I write something that calculates the value of pi, that is not software because it does not [get] extra input information as part of using it? What, prey tell, is my program? Hardware?
Re: Bug#202723: perl-doc: Non-free manpage included
I am the original author of the manual page in question. I am presently negotiating with CMP, who acquired the Perl Journal a few years ago, to obtain complete and unambiguous copyright on the article. If I succeed, I will release the original article and 'perlreftut', the derived manpage, under the GNU FDL or whatever other license the Debian maintainers think appropriate. Even if I don't succeed in this, I will try to negotiate a less restrictive license. Can I suggest that if something like this comes up in the future, you try contacting the original author for assistance? I would have done something sooner, but the problem was brought to my attention only this afternoon. Mark-Jason Dominus [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: A possible approach in solving the FDL problem
On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 02:41:34PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: That's correct. I can't. I can't stop anyone from using a word however they please. I can stop people from saying inflammable to mean flammable either. That's one of those things about living in a (semi-)free society: People are allowed to speak as they chose. Ummm... stupid as it sounds, inflammable actually does mean roughly the same thing as flammable. It's related to the verb to inflame. The opposite of flammable is nonflammable. Yeah, English is like that. - Jimmy Kaplowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: A possible approach in solving the FDL problem
On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 11:08:35AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: It's a /feeling/. Hence, I said 'I /feel/ that there is a difference'. Yes; most proponents of the less-freedom-for-documentation-than-for-software crowd appear to be operating at the bellyfeel level. -- G. Branden Robinson| The last Christian died on the Debian GNU/Linux | cross. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Friedrich Nietzsche http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgpQInK0OizBh.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: A possible approach in solving the FDL problem
On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 10:06:52PM +0200, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote: Anthony DeRobertis wrote: There are still problems with, e.g., transparent forms. If you meant problem with encrypted filesystems, this question was already answered. a) I didn't. Check the archive for a long discussion. Well, most of problems were on how people interpret You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute. One who use your arguments can say: it is prohibited to have firewall or password checking on the PC with FDL documentation. It is quite clear that it is not the intended way to enforce FDL. It is quite clear that this is what the license says. The intent of the authors is rather less clear. It is also irrelevant. Are you trying to make the argument Since this is an unreasonable restriction for free documentation, we can pretend it doesn't exist ? That doesn't make a lot of sense. Since it is not fixed till now, I conclude there is no bug here. Another point can be that bugfix is in work... Alternatively, the FSF could have decided that they do not wish to discuss the matter, since we don't consider invariant sections free - and therefore have ignored all the other points we've raised, including this one. This alternative happens to be the one which is accurate, as far as I can see (at least, that's what RMS said). b) As far as encrypted file systems, the only answer I see is that the GFDL is non-free. Please, check the archive. The archive contains a lot of people saying this makes the GFDL non-free. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | pgp5YBL8QnU40.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: A possible approach in solving the FDL problem
Anthony DeRobertis wrote: So, if those things were under strait GPL, by your usefulness definition, they wouldn't be DFSG-free, because they don't grant the freedom to create proprietary works? My usefulness definition is not interpretation of DFSG. -- Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov
Re: A possible approach in solving the FDL problem
On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 08:47:35AM +0200, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote: Anthony DeRobertis wrote: There are still problems with, e.g., transparent forms. If you meant problem with encrypted filesystems, this question was already answered. I am not at all surprised that you do not provide a citation in support of this assertion. -- G. Branden Robinson|It was a typical net.exercise -- a Debian GNU/Linux |screaming mob pounding on a greasy [EMAIL PROTECTED] |spot on the pavement, where used to http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |lie the carcass of a dead horse. pgpE3Vk4lCKhX.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: A possible approach in solving the FDL problem
On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 09:47:00PM +0200, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote: Peter S Galbraith wrote: That's mostly correct. If only the GFDL did only that. But it also forces derived works to include the unvariant sections. Also include Of course it is, otherwise one can produce a derived work to exclude invariant section. This would be a hole. Your argument was founded upon the notion that these statements were political opinions and therefore did not need to be, and should not, be modified. How would this be affected by granting the permission to remove the irrelevant crap? [I should point out, again, that we have no real business distributing political statements, and therefore this falls into the irrelevant category. The DFSG-freeness of things which have no place in Debian is not really a concern - does it matter that your lunch is not DFSG-free?] -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | pgp8VITnGKOlO.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: A possible approach in solving the FDL problem
On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 09:37:05PM +0200, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote: Are are implying that I am against the GPL? If so, read what I said over again. Are you implying that I am against the freedom? If so, read what I said over again. You are arguing that because (in the case of the GPL) we are willing to trade a freedom that we do not want for an advantage that we do, then we should also (in the case of the GFDL) be willing to trade a freedom that forms part of our core goals for an advantage that we don't want. This argument seems bogus to me. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | pgp988IdFdzjC.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: A possible approach in solving the FDL problem (joke)
On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 02:23:39PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: On Wednesday, Aug 13, 2003, at 10:31 US/Eastern, MJ Ray wrote: This is not my understanding of the word or in that sentence of the FDL. Are you sure that you have it right? Possibly there is a virus going around that changes all occurrences of or to and in displayed license texts. That would explain a lot. Hmmm, I wonder, if someone were to write a virus that were to detect when an EULA was displayed, and change the display (e.g., add up top you may either accept these terms or use this programs as allowed in Title 17 USC) what would the legal effect be, assuming click-wrap licenses are valid at all? You could probably be held without trial under the DMCA for having such a program on your computer, with or without your knowledge. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | pgp9TpS1KGKBe.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: A possible approach in solving the FDL problem
On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 01:51:06PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: It's rather hard to determine the sign when you don't have any values to do arithmetic on! Is can't distribute modified binaries a -10?; -1,000?; or -??? How exactly would this standard help us. It seems we'd just be arguing over the value of each clause as a proxy; i.e., it'd just add overhead to our determinations. That's the point. The enterprise here is to cheapen freedom by commoditizing, and reducing the deliberation process of Debian's license vetting process to floor trading at the local stock exchange. To a capitalist, everything looks like a chattel. -- G. Branden Robinson|A celibate clergy is an especially Debian GNU/Linux |good idea, because it tends to [EMAIL PROTECTED] |suppress any hereditary propensity http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |toward fanaticism.-- Carl Sagan pgpKXhtbHa7vx.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: A possible approach in solving the FDL problem
Anthony DeRobertis wrote: What's so weird about wanting to categorize software by license? I'm speaking about distribution of the software. Why is it so interesting that there are opinions between non-free in main and kill non-free? The main difference is that people who want FDL in main believe in FDL is free. People who want Debian to distribute software in non-free know and believe that this software is non-free. -- Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov
Re: A possible approach in solving the FDL problem
On Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 02:27:31PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: Le mer 13/08/2003 à 14:20, Sergey Spiridonov a écrit : Yes, encrypted system will be a problem if I will try to sell encrypted FDL books, so that one can read, but not copy or modify his copy. That was probably the intention, but the wording makes it unclear. ...and we've already seen how seriously the FSF takes suggestions for wording changes in the FDL, even those which don't run contrary to their enterprise. -- G. Branden Robinson| The noble soul has reverence for Debian GNU/Linux | itself. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Friedrich Nietzsche http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgpgMfDa7lwjG.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: A possible approach in solving the FDL problem
On Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 07:50:32PM +0900, Fedor Zuev wrote: On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: ADSo, it appears that if I have a non word-readable home directory, ADespecially if it happens to be over crypto-loopback, I can't ADstore FDL documents in $HOME. False, btw. According FDL, You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the _copies_ _you_ _make_ _or_ _distribute_. You has no obligations regarding you own copy of document. You only cannot distribute document and limit access to it in the same time. I suggest you review the difference between the meanings of and and or. -- G. Branden Robinson| Yesterday upon the stair, Debian GNU/Linux | I met a man who wasn't there. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | He wasn't there again today, http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | I think he's from the CIA. pgp7wb70oqWWR.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Inconsistencies in our approach
On Wednesday, Aug 13, 2003, at 08:18 US/Eastern, Nick Phillips wrote: You don't generally load the contents of an audio CD in before use, They how, prey tell, do you do all the ECC corrections on the data and feed it to your DA converter? Not that this is too on-topic.
Re: A possible approach in solving the FDL problem
On Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 01:27:19PM +0200, Sergey Spiridonov wrote: It's interesting that people who want Debian to move FDL to non-free at the same time want Debian to distribute non-free stuff. A false assertion, obviously made in abject ignorance. Have you ever tried doing basic research before opining on subjects upon which you obviously have minimal knowledge? -- 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 pgpjSEw2H9XwK.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: A possible approach in solving the FDL problem
On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 12:16:39AM +0900, Fedor Zuev wrote: The same as for the backup of any other content: from proprietary program to temporary files for which you do not have explicit licences just because they are temporary files, for example emails. If you practise to made backups - then you have some legal basis to do so. If you happens to live in the country where that legal basis not exists well, that is certainly NOT a problem of licence. Public licences can not and shall not be a universal cure for any legal stupidity exists or may be invented in the world. Or, you should be coherent and call non-free any licence which not provide effective counter-measure for DMCA, UCITA, PATRIOT Act, EU Copyright directives, TRIPS and so on. In other words, ALL licences. Ah, he's arguing a Fair Use exemption from the requirements of the GNU FDL. Interesting. As far as I know, the Debian Project has never before had to rely on such a legal theory to exercise fundamental freedoms for software under a license we regarded as Free. This Fair Use argument is likely to fly quite well in, say, the United Kingdom. -- G. Branden Robinson| Debian GNU/Linux | De minimis non curat lex. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgpGLpTu3dVvA.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: A possible approach in solving the FDL problem
Joe Wreschnig wrote: Repeating over and over FDL seems to be disputable on this list does not make the FDL disputed, it just makes you contridictory. Oh it is not disputed? Sorry...
Re: A possible approach in solving the FDL problem
Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Computer is a single tangible medium, and any internal technological process whithin it, you aware or even not aware about [...] is completely irrelevant to the copyright, and, consequently, licences. I thought you posted the translation of German law that says Insofar as loading, displaying, running, transmission or storage of the computer program necessitate such reproduction, such acts shall be subject to authorization by the right holder If you cause a copy to be made, it is still a copy... Your local laws may regard it differently. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ jabber://[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: A possible approach in solving the FDL problem
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Fri, 15 Aug 2003, Fedor Zuev wrote: On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, Jimmy Kaplowitz wrote: JKOn Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 07:50:32PM +0900, Fedor Zuev wrote: JK According FDL, You may not use technical measures to JK obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the _copies_ JK _you_ _make_ _or_ _distribute_. You has no obligations regarding JK you own copy of document. You only cannot distribute document and JK limit access to it in the same time. JKHowever, if you _make_ a copy by using the cp command on your own JKsystem, you are subject to the rule you quoted, and you can't put it on JKan encrypted filesystem. Again. You demand from licensce to cure a problem, nonexistent under any jurisdiction I heard about. Computer is a single tangible medium, and any internal technological process whithin it, you aware or even not aware about (How about, for example, a dynamic memory regeneration? Hundreds of thousands copies of RAM per second btw) is completely irrelevant to the copyright, and, consequently, licences. _MAI Systems v. Peak Computer_ (991 F.2d 511) says otherwise. To quote part: The district court's grant of a summary judgment on MAI's claims of copyright infringement reflects its conclusion that a 'copying' for purposes of copyright law occurs when a program is transferred from a permanent storage device to a computer's RAM. This conclusion is consistent with its finding, in granting the preliminary injunction, that: 'the loading of copyrighted software from a storage medium (hard disk, floppy disk, or read only memory) into the memory of a central processing unit (CPU) causes a copy to be made. In the absence of ownership of the copyright or express permission by license, such acts constitute copyright infringement.' We find that this conclusion is supported by the record and the law. JKIt's also possible to interpret _make_ to cover JKa download initiated by you, since a new copy of the program is JKcertainly being made. No. At the moment of download you not have the copy of licence that shipped with the package. So, you cannot agree or not agree with this licence to get or not get the right to make copy. For initial download you anyway need an another source of right. Distributor consent, usually. Distributor has this right, according to _his_ copy of licence. And licence do not demand from a distributor to control medium of downloader`s copy. Licence only demand not to encrypt work himself. Upon download, a new license gets granted from the FSF to yourself. Given that breaking shrinkwrap can constitute acceptance of a license, it is not that much of a stretch to say that double-clicking or issuing a get foo to your download client isn't enough to constitute acceptance of a license. - -- * You are not expected to understand this. - --comment from Unix system 6 source, credited to Lions and Johnson Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's who. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76 iD8DBQE/PENw+ZSKG3nWr3ARAnR5AJ9KRQUzPXkFQbxLFxwOivuTTcEKbACeIA38 t+KL6qgBjaWhJuH6QRYevdI= =fs2a -END PGP SIGNATURE-
