Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote: On Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 02:38:36PM +1200, Adam Warner wrote: I believe this comment is a mischaracterisation of the consensus that has developed on this list. Recently explained by Nathanael Nerode on the glibc mailing list: http://lists.debian.org/debian-glibc/2003/debian-glibc-200308/msg00160.html My next post to -devel-announce will discuss some of these finer details. In short, some members of the FSF have asked for us to give them some more time to come up with a GFDL that's DFSG-free before we go all gung-ho about putting it in non-free and having bigger controversies. Martin (wearing his DPL hat) talked to me about this at debcamp. Haven't they had enough time to make a decision? This debate has been going on for _years_. The DFSG is not something that is optional if it is annoying. The documentation can be put back in when it is DFSG free. If the FSF can't make up its mind before Sarge releases, then they have only themselves to blame. Not to mention that the end result could easily be another sorta-free license. It really is time to set a deadline. The FSF has had enough time. Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
I am circulating this survey to gauge the level of consensus on this subject. The purpose of this survey is so that the participants in this mailing list can make an informed recommendation to the rest of the Debian Project. Please reply to this message, to this mailing list, answering the questions below. If you are a Debian Developer as of the date on this message, please GPG-sign your reply. === CUT HERE === Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2 Please mark with an X the item that most closely approximates your opinion. Mark only one. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is not a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Works under this license would require significant additional permission statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. In general, works under this license would require no additional permission statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, can be a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines, but only if certain restrictions stated in the license are not exercised by the copyright holder with respect to a given work. Works under this license will have to be scrutinized on a case-by-case basis for us to determine whether the work can be be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] None of the above statements approximates my opinion. Part 2. Status of Respondent Please mark with an X the following item only if it is true. [ ] I am a Debian Developer as described in the Debian Constitution as of the date on this survey. === CUT HERE === -- G. Branden Robinson|America is at that awkward stage. Debian GNU/Linux |It's too late to work within the [EMAIL PROTECTED] |system, but too early to shoot the http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |bastards. -- Claire Wolfe pgpiYQh5BXBzx.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 12:09:54AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: === CUT HERE === Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2 Please mark with an X the item that most closely approximates your opinion. Mark only one. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is not a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Works under this license would require significant additional permission statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. In general, works under this license would require no additional permission statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, can be a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines, but only if certain restrictions stated in the license are not exercised by the copyright holder with respect to a given work. Works under this license will have to be scrutinized on a case-by-case basis for us to determine whether the work can be be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] None of the above statements approximates my opinion. Part 2. Status of Respondent Please mark with an X the following item only if it is true. [ ] I am a Debian Developer as described in the Debian Constitution as of the date on this survey. === CUT HERE === [ X ] I'm on the SPI Board, and do have a significant interest in free software law. I've never cared for some of the provisions of the FDL. I've been quiet up to now on this list, but I don't think that anything I say right now will add to what has already been discussed. -drew -- M. Drew Streib [EMAIL PROTECTED] Independent Rambler, Software/Standards/Freedom/Law -- http://dtype.org/ pgpDXuaSazuWr.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
=== CUT HERE === Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2 Please mark with an X the item that most closely approximates your opinion. Mark only one. [ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is not a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Works under this license would require significant additional permission statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. In general, works under this license would require no additional permission statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, can be a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines, but only if certain restrictions stated in the license are not exercised by the copyright holder with respect to a given work. Works under this license will have to be scrutinized on a case-by-case basis for us to determine whether the work can be be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] None of the above statements approximates my opinion. Part 2. Status of Respondent Please mark with an X the following item only if it is true. [ X ] I am a Debian Developer as described in the Debian Constitution as of the date on this survey. === CUT HERE === pgpnYwvmCPJnN.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 12:09:54AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2 Please mark with an X the item that most closely approximates your opinion. Mark only one. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is not a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Works under this license would require significant additional permission statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. In general, works under this license would require no additional permission statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, can be a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines, but only if certain restrictions stated in the license are not exercised by the copyright holder with respect to a given work. Works under this license will have to be scrutinized on a case-by-case basis for us to determine whether the work can be be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] None of the above statements approximates my opinion. Part 2. Status of Respondent Please mark with an X the following item only if it is true. [ X ] I am a Debian Developer as described in the Debian Constitution as of the date on this survey. === CUT HERE === pgp1gCTYMghF7.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
On Thu, 2003-08-21 at 00:09, Branden Robinson wrote: === CUT HERE === Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2 Please mark with an X the item that most closely approximates your opinion. Mark only one. [ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is not a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Works under this license would require significant additional permission statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. In general, works under this license would require no additional permission statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, can be a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines, but only if certain restrictions stated in the license are not exercised by the copyright holder with respect to a given work. Works under this license will have to be scrutinized on a case-by-case basis for us to determine whether the work can be be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] None of the above statements approximates my opinion. Part 2. Status of Respondent Please mark with an X the following item only if it is true. [ X ] I am a Debian Developer as described in the Debian Constitution as of the date on this survey. === CUT HERE === -- Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Should our documentation be free? (Was Re: Inconsistencies in our approach)
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote: I see no need (but it is still possible) to have a very exact line between program and documentation. There's no need for such a line if and only if we don't make a distinction between the freedoms that documentation must have, and the freedoms that software must have. If we decide to make such a distinction, we have to have a ruberic to tell one from the other. What can be a good start point is that programs can be executed by computer. Documentation is intended for human consumption and usually can not be executed by computer. Refering back to Manoj's example, these defintions fail to indicate which set of standards we should apply to the documentation+software+data bits. I want you understand me correctly, it is possible to have a clear exact bright line to distinguish between program and documentation. I don't follow the logic of this statement. In light of Manoj's example, how to you separate the program from the documentation? Seems to me rather like separating the hole from the donut.[0] I'll bring up one more anecdote that will hopefully bring more light to this issue. The US Judicial system has long sought to find a suitable method to distinguish art from erotica and pornography. Art is rather clearly protected under the First Amendment. The Supremes have traditionally held that pornography is not protected to the same degree, and as such can be regulated to some degree by the legislature. Because of this, they have had to come forward with a series of definitions to try to define pr0n. The best so far? Justice Potter Stewart's: I know it when I see it[1] Since we can't seem to adequately differentiate between the two, perhaps we should learn the lesson that the US legislature seems incapable of. Namely, stop treating them separately, and merely apply the same ruberic to everything in Debian.[2] Don Armstrong 0: http://www.seeing-stars.com/Images/Slides/RandysDonuts.JPG 1: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=USvol=378invol=184 2: Excluding copyright notices and separable licenses, of course. -- UF: What's your favourite coffee blend? PD: Dark Crude with heavy water. You are understandink? If geiger counter does not click, the coffee, she is just not thick. http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgpf9gaqZgbo9.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Should our documentation be free?
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 13:03:37 -0700, Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: First off, sorry for starting off an old discussion. I've been away for the past two weeks. [If any one cares, there are pictures available on my website.] On Wed, 06 Aug 2003, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote: So, if you find a definition which makes no difference between software and documentation, please send it on this list. There is a difference, even if someone doesn't want to see it. There clearly is a difference, otherwise we wouldn't need two words for the concept. Umm, the presence of synonyms is not necesarily proof of a difference. If you feel so strongly that software, data, and documentation are distinct, would you adress the two cases I have posted here? (http://www.stdc.com/QMS/documentation being one, where if the documentation can be separated from the code; the other is the case of hte xml file that serves, in turn as documentation, data, and code) manoj wondering if his mail is making it out of his machine -- Decaffeinated coffee? Just Say No. 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: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 20:33:37 -0400 (EDT), Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 08:14:45 -0400 (EDT), Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: The .orig.tar.gz files only have to be purged of non-free stuff if that stuff can't be distributed at all. AIUI, it is perfectly acceptable to have non-free stuff in the .orig.tar.gz file that is removed by the debian patch. Not if the orig.tar.gz is to live in main. And if the orig.tar.gz is not in main, none of the binaries derived from it can be in main. Hmm. In http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200304/msg00451.html Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote: I don't have any problem with an .orig.tar.gz that includes redistributable but non-DFSG-free stuff, as long as (eg) the .diff.gz removes those files. Though I quake in my shoes at contradicting the RM, that does not make sense. If I have deb-src http://ftp1.us.debian.org/debian sid main in my /etc/apt/sources.list, and I do apt-get source foo, and I get non-free stuff, then Debian main just send me non free software in the orig.tar.gz. Moreover, some non-free material makes it illegal to sell the code even bundled with other software, and guess what: Debian CD's contain source code, and people are not used to inspecting software in main to see if selling the CD would violate the law. Indeed, shipping non free stuff on an official CD violates the social contract; and people should not lose sight of the fact that Debian does include source code. on the other hand, the FTP admins disagree http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200305/msg00092.html Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I once had a big old nasty flamewar with the FTP admins that was tangentially related to this point, but the FTP admins and I agreed that having non-free source code in a package's .orig.tar.gz was unacceptable even if it wasn't used for anything and did not appear in any binary packages. I would have to agree with that. So I concede the point. In any case, making a new orig.tar.gz isn't any harder than having the diff take it out. Quite so. manoj -- If he should ever change his faith, it'll be because he no longer thinks he's God. 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: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
=== CUT HERE === Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2 Please mark with an X the item that most closely approximates your opinion. Mark only one. [ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is not a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Works under this license would require significant additional permission statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. In general, works under this license would require no additional permission statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, can be a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines, but only if certain restrictions stated in the license are not exercised by the copyright holder with respect to a given work. Works under this license will have to be scrutinized on a case-by-case basis for us to determine whether the work can be be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] None of the above statements approximates my opinion. Part 2. Status of Respondent Please mark with an X the following item only if it is true. [ ] I am a Debian Developer as described in the Debian Constitution as of the date on this survey. === CUT HERE ===
Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
Branden Robinson wrote: Please reply to this message, to this mailing list, answering the questions below. If you are a Debian Developer as of the date on this message, please GPG-sign your reply. === CUT HERE === Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2 Please mark with an X the item that most closely approximates your opinion. Mark only one. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is not a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Works under this license would require significant additional permission statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. In general, works under this license would require no additional permission statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, can be a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines, but only if certain restrictions stated in the license are not exercised by the copyright holder with respect to a given work. Works under this license will have to be scrutinized on a case-by-case basis for us to determine whether the work can be be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] None of the above statements approximates my opinion. Part 2. Status of Respondent Please mark with an X the following item only if it is true. [ X ] I am a Debian Developer as described in the Debian Constitution as of the date on this survey. === CUT HERE ===
Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2 Please mark with an X the item that most closely approximates your opinion. Mark only one. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is not a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Works under this license would require significant additional permission statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. In general, works under this license would require no additional permission statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, can be a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines, but only if certain restrictions stated in the license are not exercised by the copyright holder with respect to a given work. Works under this license will have to be scrutinized on a case-by-case basis for us to determine whether the work can be be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] None of the above statements approximates my opinion. Part 2. Status of Respondent Please mark with an X the following item only if it is true. [ X ] I am a Debian Developer as described in the Debian Constitution as of the date on this survey. -- Kind regards, ++ | Bas Zoetekouw | GPG key: 0644fab7 | || Fingerprint: c1f5 f24c d514 3fec 8bf6 | | [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] | a2b1 2bae e41f 0644 fab7 | ++ pgpktAuoopjWF.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
Op do 21-08-2003, om 07:09 schreef Branden Robinson: I am circulating this survey to gauge the level of consensus on this subject. The purpose of this survey is so that the participants in this mailing list can make an informed recommendation to the rest of the Debian Project. Please reply to this message, to this mailing list, answering the questions below. If you are a Debian Developer as of the date on this message, please GPG-sign your reply. === CUT HERE === Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2 Please mark with an X the item that most closely approximates your opinion. Mark only one. [ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is not a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Works under this license would require significant additional permission statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. In general, works under this license would require no additional permission statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, can be a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines, but only if certain restrictions stated in the license are not exercised by the copyright holder with respect to a given work. Works under this license will have to be scrutinized on a case-by-case basis for us to determine whether the work can be be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] None of the above statements approximates my opinion. Part 2. Status of Respondent Please mark with an X the following item only if it is true. [ X ] I am a Debian Developer as described in the Debian Constitution as of the date on this survey. === CUT HERE === -- 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: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: === CUT HERE === Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2 Please mark with an X the item that most closely approximates your opinion. Mark only one. [ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is not a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Works under this license would require significant additional permission statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. In general, works under this license would require no additional permission statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, can be a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines, but only if certain restrictions stated in the license are not exercised by the copyright holder with respect to a given work. Works under this license will have to be scrutinized on a case-by-case basis for us to determine whether the work can be be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] None of the above statements approximates my opinion. Part 2. Status of Respondent Please mark with an X the following item only if it is true. [ ] I am a Debian Developer as described in the Debian Constitution as of the date on this survey. === CUT HERE === [ X ] I am in the Debian New Maintainer queue, having copleted the Philosophy Procedures phase, at the date of this survey. -- ilmari pgppYbGR6IOUa.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
* Branden Robinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2 Please mark with an X the item that most closely approximates your opinion. Mark only one. [ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is not a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Works under this license would require significant additional permission statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. In general, works under this license would require no additional permission statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, can be a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines, but only if certain restrictions stated in the license are not exercised by the copyright holder with respect to a given work. Works under this license will have to be scrutinized on a case-by-case basis for us to determine whether the work can be be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] None of the above statements approximates my opinion. Part 2. Status of Respondent Please mark with an X the following item only if it is true. [ ] I am a Debian Developer as described in the Debian Constitution as of the date on this survey. iain -- wh33, y1p33 3tc. If sharing a thing in no way diminishes it, it is not rightly owned if it is not shared. -St. Augustine
Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2 Please mark with an X the item that most closely approximates your opinion. Mark only one. [ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is not a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Works under this license would require significant additional permission statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. In general, works under this license would require no additional permission statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, can be a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines, but only if certain restrictions stated in the license are not exercised by the copyright holder with respect to a given work. Works under this license will have to be scrutinized on a case-by-case basis for us to determine whether the work can be be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] None of the above statements approximates my opinion. Part 2. Status of Respondent Please mark with an X the following item only if it is true. [ ] I am a Debian Developer as described in the Debian Constitution as of the date on this survey. === CUT HERE ===
Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2 Please mark with an X the item that most closely approximates your opinion. Mark only one. [ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is not a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Works under this license would require significant additional permission statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. In general, works under this license would require no additional permission statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, can be a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines, but only if certain restrictions stated in the license are not exercised by the copyright holder with respect to a given work. Works under this license will have to be scrutinized on a case-by-case basis for us to determine whether the work can be be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] None of the above statements approximates my opinion. Part 2. Status of Respondent Please mark with an X the following item only if it is true. [ ] I am a Debian Developer as described in the Debian Constitution as of the date on this survey. Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
=== CUT HERE === Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2 Please mark with an X the item that most closely approximates your opinion. Mark only one. [ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is not a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Works under this license would require significant additional permission statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. In general, works under this license would require no additional permission statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, can be a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines, but only if certain restrictions stated in the license are not exercised by the copyright holder with respect to a given work. Works under this license will have to be scrutinized on a case-by-case basis for us to determine whether the work can be be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] None of the above statements approximates my opinion. Part 2. Status of Respondent Please mark with an X the following item only if it is true. [ ] I am a Debian Developer as described in the Debian Constitution as of the date on this survey. === CUT HERE === -- Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
=== CUT HERE === Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2 Please mark with an X the item that most closely approximates your opinion. Mark only one. [ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is not a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Works under this license would require significant additional permission statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. In general, works under this license would require no additional permission statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, can be a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines, but only if certain restrictions stated in the license are not exercised by the copyright holder with respect to a given work. Works under this license will have to be scrutinized on a case-by-case basis for us to determine whether the work can be be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] None of the above statements approximates my opinion. Part 2. Status of Respondent Please mark with an X the following item only if it is true. [ ] I am a Debian Developer as described in the Debian Constitution as of the date on this survey. === CUT HERE ===
Re: Should our documentation be free?
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003, Manoj Srivastava wrote: There clearly is a difference, otherwise we wouldn't need two words for the concept. Umm, the presence of synonyms is not necesarily proof of a difference. Heh. Ignore my statement. It's not particularly brilliant.[1] If you feel so strongly that software, data, and documentation are distinct, would you adress the two cases I have posted here? (http://www.stdc.com/QMS/documentation being one, where if the documentation can be separated from the code; the other is the case of hte xml file that serves, in turn as documentation, data, and code) Perhaps I'm being obtuse. I'm not saying that we can always distinguish software from documentation. In the above statement, I was just merely trying to indicate that documentation could be distinct from software. Yet, the fact that it could be distinct doesn't mean that it always is, or that we can easily draw such a distinction in cases like you mention (the documentation=data=code example.) And yes, your mail is getting out. [Even though my mail wasn't getting in for a while. ;=)] Don Armstrong 1: Yes, I naively ignored synonyms... although, even synonyms often have slightly different connotations. -- Fate and Temperament are two words for one and the same concept. -- Novalis [Hermann Hesse _Demian_] http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgpATS3IVZU0w.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003, Branden Robinson wrote: === CUT HERE === Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2 Please mark with an X the item that most closely approximates your opinion. Mark only one. [ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is not a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Works under this license would require significant additional permission statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. In general, works under this license would require no additional permission statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, can be a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines, but only if certain restrictions stated in the license are not exercised by the copyright holder with respect to a given work. Works under this license will have to be scrutinized on a case-by-case basis for us to determine whether the work can be be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] None of the above statements approximates my opinion. Part 2. Status of Respondent Please mark with an X the following item only if it is true. [ ] I am a Debian Developer as described in the Debian Constitution as of the date on this survey. === CUT HERE === Don Armstrong (Still not a DD.) -- UF: What's your favourite coffee blend? PD: Dark Crude with heavy water. You are understandink? If geiger counter does not click, the coffee, she is just not thick. http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgpwuGnwTNzke.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
Branden Robinson wrote: I am circulating this survey to gauge the level of consensus on this subject. The purpose of this survey is so that the participants in this mailing list can make an informed recommendation to the rest of the Debian Project. Please reply to this message, to this mailing list, answering the questions below. If you are a Debian Developer as of the date on this message, please GPG-sign your reply. === CUT HERE === Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2 Please mark with an X the item that most closely approximates your opinion. Mark only one. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is not a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Works under this license would require significant additional permission statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. In general, works under this license would require no additional permission statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, can be a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines, but only if certain restrictions stated in the license are not exercised by the copyright holder with respect to a given work. Works under this license will have to be scrutinized on a case-by-case basis for us to determine whether the work can be be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] None of the above statements approximates my opinion. Part 2. Status of Respondent Please mark with an X the following item only if it is true. [ ] I am a Debian Developer as described in the Debian Constitution as of the date on this survey. === CUT HERE === -- Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov
Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 12:09:54AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: === CUT HERE === Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2 Please mark with an X the item that most closely approximates your opinion. Mark only one. [ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is not a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Works under this license would require significant additional permission statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. In general, works under this license would require no additional permission statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, can be a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines, but only if certain restrictions stated in the license are not exercised by the copyright holder with respect to a given work. Works under this license will have to be scrutinized on a case-by-case basis for us to determine whether the work can be be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] None of the above statements approximates my opinion. Part 2. Status of Respondent Please mark with an X the following item only if it is true. [ X ] I am a Debian Developer as described in the Debian Constitution as of the date on this survey. === CUT HERE === pgpXptwAFiK1n.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 === CUT HERE === Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2 Please mark with an X the item that most closely approximates your opinion. Mark only one. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is not a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Works under this license would require significant additional permission statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. In general, works under this license would require no additional permission statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, can be a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines, but only if certain restrictions stated in the license are not exercised by the copyright holder with respect to a given work. Works under this license will have to be scrutinized on a case-by-case basis for us to determine whether the work can be be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] None of the above statements approximates my opinion. Part 2. Status of Respondent Please mark with an X the following item only if it is true. [ X ] I am a Debian Developer as described in the Debian Constitution as of the date on this survey. === CUT HERE === - -- _ |_) _ |_Robert D. Hilliard[EMAIL PROTECTED] |_) (_) |_) 1294 S.W. Seagull Way [EMAIL PROTECTED] Palm City, FL 34990 USA GPG Key ID: 390D6559 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Processed by: Debian GNU/Linux - Emacs - Gnus - Mailcrypt iD8DBQE/RNjdn+Nh6TkNZVkRAuptAJsHu3qayI8cTurLCFVsmjEpGOrUXACgzhia 8C07Gd+ZvpFesuT5gp2EXHM= =spHC -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
On Thu 21 Aug Branden Robinson wrote: Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2 Please mark with an X the item that most closely approximates your opinion. Mark only one. [ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is not a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Works under this license would require significant additional permission statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. In general, works under this license would require no additional permission statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, can be a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines, but only if certain restrictions stated in the license are not exercised by the copyright holder with respect to a given work. Works under this license will have to be scrutinized on a case-by-case basis for us to determine whether the work can be be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] None of the above statements approximates my opinion. Part 2. Status of Respondent Please mark with an X the following item only if it is true. [ ] I am a Debian Developer as described in the Debian Constitution as of the date on this survey. -- 6973E2CF print 2C95 66AD 1596 37D2 41FC 609F 76C0 A4EC 6973 E2CF Poets have been mysteriously silent on the subject of cheese. --G.K. Chesterton pgpkkdlA7LvDf.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
=== CUT HERE === Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2 Please mark with an X the item that most closely approximates your opinion. Mark only one. [ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is not a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Works under this license would require significant additional permission statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. In general, works under this license would require no additional permission statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, can be a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines, but only if certain restrictions stated in the license are not exercised by the copyright holder with respect to a given work. Works under this license will have to be scrutinized on a case-by-case basis for us to determine whether the work can be be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] None of the above statements approximates my opinion. Part 2. Status of Respondent Please mark with an X the following item only if it is true. [ X ] I am a Debian Developer as described in the Debian Constitution as of the date on this survey. === CUT HERE === pgp1kAnYDCVah.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
O Xoves, 21 de Agosto de 2003 ás 00:09:54 -0500, Branden Robinson escribía: === CUT HERE === Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2 Please mark with an X the item that most closely approximates your opinion. Mark only one. [ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is not a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Works under this license would require significant additional permission statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. In general, works under this license would require no additional permission statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, can be a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines, but only if certain restrictions stated in the license are not exercised by the copyright holder with respect to a given work. Works under this license will have to be scrutinized on a case-by-case basis for us to determine whether the work can be be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] None of the above statements approximates my opinion. Part 2. Status of Respondent Please mark with an X the following item only if it is true. [ X ] I am a Debian Developer as described in the Debian Constitution as of the date on this survey. === CUT HERE === -- Tarrío (Compostela) pgpBlE9wmHk9K.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2 Please mark with an X the item that most closely approximates your opinion. Mark only one. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is not a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Works under this license would require significant additional permission statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. In general, works under this license would require no additional permission statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, can be a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines, but only if certain restrictions stated in the license are not exercised by the copyright holder with respect to a given work. Works under this license will have to be scrutinized on a case-by-case basis for us to determine whether the work can be be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] None of the above statements approximates my opinion. Part 2. Status of Respondent Please mark with an X the following item only if it is true. [ X ] I am a Debian Developer as described in the Debian Constitution as of the date on this survey. -- Joerg joergland Wendland GPG: 51CF8417 FP: 79C0 7671 AFC7 315E 657A F318 57A3 7FBD 51CF 8417 pgpwEvI4i0Jx5.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
Before I reply, I should add I still see it as wrong and misleading to apply *software* guidelines to *documentation*, which to me are fundamentally different beasts. Thus, I see the question as rather misleading. However, with the question narrowly framed as it is, regarding applying the DFSG to the GFDL, I would concur as listed below. On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 12:09:54AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is not a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Works under this license would require significant additional permission statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. If you hold this opinion, be aware that this would only work if that permission is not specific to Debian. [X ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, can be a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines, but only if certain restrictions stated in the license are not exercised by the copyright holder with respect to a given work. Works under this license will have to be scrutinized on a case-by-case basis for us to determine whether the work can be be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] None of the above statements approximates my opinion. Part 2. Status of Respondent Please mark with an X the following item only if it is true. [X ] I am a Debian Developer as described in the Debian Constitution as of the date on this survey.
Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 12:09:54AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2 Please mark with an X the item that most closely approximates your opinion. Mark only one. [ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is not a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Works under this license would require significant additional permission statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. In general, works under this license would require no additional permission statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, can be a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines, but only if certain restrictions stated in the license are not exercised by the copyright holder with respect to a given work. Works under this license will have to be scrutinized on a case-by-case basis for us to determine whether the work can be be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] None of the above statements approximates my opinion. Part 2. Status of Respondent Please mark with an X the following item only if it is true. [ ] I am a Debian Developer as described in the Debian Constitution as of the date on this survey. -- Jamin W. Collins This is the typical unix way of doing things: you string together lots of very specific tools to accomplish larger tasks. -- Vineet Kumar
Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: === CUT HERE === Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2 Please mark with an X the item that most closely approximates your opinion. Mark only one. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is not a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Works under this license would require significant additional permission statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. In general, works under this license would require no additional permission statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, can be a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines, but only if certain restrictions stated in the license are not exercised by the copyright holder with respect to a given work. Works under this license will have to be scrutinized on a case-by-case basis for us to determine whether the work can be be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] None of the above statements approximates my opinion. Part 2. Status of Respondent Please mark with an X the following item only if it is true. [ X ] I am a Debian Developer as described in the Debian Constitution as of the date on this survey. === CUT HERE === -- Peter Makholm | Emacs is the only modern general-purpose [EMAIL PROTECTED] | operating system that doesn't multitask http://hacking.dk | pgpWcO0sT0Y3z.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
Branden Robinson wrote: (not signed because I don't have my key on this machine) [ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is not a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Works under this license would require significant additional permission statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. (snip other alternatives) [ X ] I am a Debian Developer as described in the Debian Constitution as of the date on this survey. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
Branden Robinson wrote: Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2 Please mark with an X the item that most closely approximates your opinion. Mark only one. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is not a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Works under this license would require significant additional permission statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. In general, works under this license would require no additional permission statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, can be a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines, but only if certain restrictions stated in the license are not exercised by the copyright holder with respect to a given work. Works under this license will have to be scrutinized on a case-by-case basis for us to determine whether the work can be be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] None of the above statements approximates my opinion. Part 2. Status of Respondent Please mark with an X the following item only if it is true. [ X ] I am a Debian Developer as described in the Debian Constitution as of the date on this survey. -- Michael Schultheiss E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] pgpSv3faDGwHB.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2 Please mark with an X the item that most closely approximates your opinion. Mark only one. [ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is not a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Works under this license would require significant additional permission statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. In general, works under this license would require no additional permission statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, can be a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines, but only if certain restrictions stated in the license are not exercised by the copyright holder with respect to a given work. Works under this license will have to be scrutinized on a case-by-case basis for us to determine whether the work can be be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] None of the above statements approximates my opinion. Part 2. Status of Respondent Please mark with an X the following item only if it is true. [ ] I am a Debian Developer as described in the Debian Constitution as of the date on this survey. I have answered under the assumption that the license is applied to software (and not documentation, which is the common case), since this seems to be what you have asked for. pgp3JLfWCC5yF.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 === CUT HERE === Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2 Please mark with an X the item that most closely approximates your opinion. Mark only one. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is not a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Works under this license would require significant additional permission statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. In general, works under this license would require no additional permission statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, can be a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines, but only if certain restrictions stated in the license are not exercised by the copyright holder with respect to a given work. Works under this license will have to be scrutinized on a case-by-case basis for us to determine whether the work can be be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ X ] None of the above statements approximates my opinion. Part 2. Status of Respondent Please mark with an X the following item only if it is true. [ X ] I am a Debian Developer as described in the Debian Constitution as of the date on this survey. === CUT HERE === - -- Ramakrishnan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Use Free Software -- Help stamp out Software Hoarding! -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8 http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/ iD8DBQE/RPFOFyn1hmqfPDgRAqRDAJ9MUH6hV97J34jh5EqO4XJ3/BtYfQCgpJRX AhwUAdIDf+c5p3ax3kRzg5Q= =4jAh -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
Branden Robinson wrote: === CUT HERE === Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2 Please mark with an X the item that most closely approximates your opinion. Mark only one. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is not a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Works under this license would require significant additional permission statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. In general, works under this license would require no additional permission statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, can be a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines, but only if certain restrictions stated in the license are not exercised by the copyright holder with respect to a given work. Works under this license will have to be scrutinized on a case-by-case basis for us to determine whether the work can be be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] None of the above statements approximates my opinion. Part 2. Status of Respondent Please mark with an X the following item only if it is true. [ X ] I am a Debian Developer as described in the Debian Constitution as of the date on this survey. === CUT HERE === -- see shy jo pgpEkbg1qkNw0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2 Please mark with an X the item that most closely approximates your opinion. Mark only one. [ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is not a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Works under this license would require significant additional permission statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. In general, works under this license would require no additional permission statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, can be a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines, but only if certain restrictions stated in the license are not exercised by the copyright holder with respect to a given work. Works under this license will have to be scrutinized on a case-by-case basis for us to determine whether the work can be be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] None of the above statements approximates my opinion. Part 2. Status of Respondent Please mark with an X the following item only if it is true. [ X ] I am a Debian Developer as described in the Debian Constitution as of the date on this survey. -- Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED],''`. Debian GNU NetBSD/i386 porter: :' : `. `' `- pgpGWqq7TfqQG.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 12:09:54AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: === CUT HERE === Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2 Please mark with an X the item that most closely approximates your opinion. Mark only one. [ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is not a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Works under this license would require significant additional permission statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. In general, works under this license would require no additional permission statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, can be a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines, but only if certain restrictions stated in the license are not exercised by the copyright holder with respect to a given work. Works under this license will have to be scrutinized on a case-by-case basis for us to determine whether the work can be be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] None of the above statements approximates my opinion. Part 2. Status of Respondent Please mark with an X the following item only if it is true. [ X ] I am a Debian Developer as described in the Debian Constitution as of the date on this survey. === CUT HERE === -- Christophe Barb? [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG FingerPrint: E0F6 FADF 2A5C F072 6AF8 F67A 8F45 2F1E D72C B41E Anyone who has never made a mistake has never tried anything new. -- Albert Einstein
Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 12:09:54AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2 Please mark with an X the item that most closely approximates your opinion. Mark only one. [ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is not a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Works under this license would require significant additional permission statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. In general, works under this license would require no additional permission statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, can be a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines, but only if certain restrictions stated in the license are not exercised by the copyright holder with respect to a given work. Works under this license will have to be scrutinized on a case-by-case basis for us to determine whether the work can be be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] None of the above statements approximates my opinion. Part 2. Status of Respondent Please mark with an X the following item only if it is true. [ X ] I am a Debian Developer as described in the Debian Constitution as of the date on this survey. -- Dmitry Borodaenko pgpp4Tz3EIp1h.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
Joerg Wendland wrote: [ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. In general, works under this license would require no additional permission statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. Oh, now, come on. The GFDL plainly /isn't/ compatible with the DFSG. Whether or not it /has/ to be compatible with the DFSG in order to be in Debian is an entirely separate issue, but the above is obviously not true. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy
On Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 08:33:37PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200305/msg00092.html Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I once had a big old nasty flamewar with the FTP admins that was tangentially related to this point, but the FTP admins and I agreed that having non-free source code in a package's .orig.tar.gz was unacceptable even if it wasn't used for anything and did not appear in any binary packages. So I concede the point. In any case, making a new orig.tar.gz isn't any harder than having the diff take it out. It's possible the FTP admins' assessment has changed since the debacle in question, which was a couple/3 years ago. My personal feeling is that we should not knowingly let non-free works into the Debian OS. The Debian OS is source as well as binaries. -- G. Branden Robinson| There's nothing an agnostic can't Debian GNU/Linux | do if he doesn't know whether he [EMAIL PROTECTED] | believes in it or not. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Graham Chapman pgp3C65yuvAaB.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 00:09:54 -0500, Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2 Please mark with an X the item that most closely approximates your opinion. Mark only one. [X] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is not a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Works under this license would require significant additional permission statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. In general, works under this license would require no additional permission statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, can be a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines, but only if certain restrictions stated in the license are not exercised by the copyright holder with respect to a given work. Works under this license will have to be scrutinized on a case-by-case basis for us to determine whether the work can be be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] None of the above statements approximates my opinion. Part 2. Status of Respondent Please mark with an X the following item only if it is true. [X] I am a Debian Developer as described in the Debian Constitution as of the date on this survey. === CUT HERE === -- If you can't debate me, then there is no way in hell you'll out-insult me. Scott Legrand ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) You may be wrong here, little one. Clark ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) 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 pgpStp4zCKBcK.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy
On Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 12:44:57PM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote: Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote: My next post to -devel-announce will discuss some of these finer details. In short, some members of the FSF have asked for us to give them some more time to come up with a GFDL that's DFSG-free before we go all gung-ho about putting it in non-free and having bigger controversies. Martin (wearing his DPL hat) talked to me about this at debcamp. Well, that's news! News to me as well; I was *at* DebCamp and DebConf. The issue of the GNU FDL even came up during one of the presentations; Jonas Oberg of FSF Europe was asked about it point blank. Well, I guess if the DPL and RM have made up their minds, there's no point in anyone else being involved, eh? Your transparent government at work! :) -- G. Branden Robinson|I must confess to being surprised Debian GNU/Linux |by the magnitude of incompatibility [EMAIL PROTECTED] |with such a minor version bump. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |-- Manoj Srivastava pgp4mBsxL1Tvf.pgp Description: PGP signature
[DISCUSSION] SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 10:07:20AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote: Before I reply, I should add I still see it as wrong and misleading to apply *software* guidelines to *documentation*, which to me are fundamentally different beasts. Thus, I see the question as rather misleading. Which question? If you mean the subject line, please keep in mind that I was simply trying to make a very brief summary of a complex issue. However, with the question narrowly framed as it is, regarding applying the DFSG to the GFDL, I would concur as listed below. It was precisely my point to frame the quesstion narrowly. We've meta-discussed issues for literally years. I want a summary of (what should be) informed opinions on *this particular point* that can be presented to the rest of the Debian developers. [snip] If you hold this opinion, be aware that this would only work if that permission is not specific to Debian. Of course. -- G. Branden Robinson|As people do better, they start Debian GNU/Linux |voting like Republicans -- unless [EMAIL PROTECTED] |they have too much education and http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |vote Democratic. -- Karl Rove pgp2DQC03soa5.pgp Description: PGP signature
[DISCUSSION] SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 05:27:22PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: I have answered under the assumption that the license is applied to software (and not documentation, which is the common case), since this seems to be what you have asked for. No; please reread the statements. I said works; not documentation, and not software. You may wish to re-submit your response to the survey in light of this. -- G. Branden Robinson| Debian GNU/Linux | If encryption is outlawed, only [EMAIL PROTECTED] | outlaws will @goH7Ok=q4fDj]Kz?. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgpO9FINKb3q7.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 12:09:54AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: === CUT HERE === Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2 Please mark with an X the item that most closely approximates your opinion. Mark only one. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is not a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Works under this license would require significant additional permission statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. In general, works under this license would require no additional permission statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, can be a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines, but only if certain restrictions stated in the license are not exercised by the copyright holder with respect to a given work. Works under this license will have to be scrutinized on a case-by-case basis for us to determine whether the work can be be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] None of the above statements approximates my opinion. Part 2. Status of Respondent Please mark with an X the following item only if it is true. [ X ] I am a Debian Developer as described in the Debian Constitution as of the date on this survey. === CUT HERE === Regards, -- Kyle McMartin [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1024D/191FCD8A - 331A 9468 C04D 3A76 5C56 BA68 7EB7 92DF 191F CD8A 2048R/F515317D - 68 A9 0D 28 1B DF 8D 42 0F CC AF 98 A8 D5 A4 04 pgpJtJG21WT9n.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2 Please mark with an X the item that most closely approximates your opinion. Mark only one. [ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is not a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Works under this license would require significant additional permission statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. In general, works under this license would require no additional permission statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, can be a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines, but only if certain restrictions stated in the license are not exercised by the copyright holder with respect to a given work. Works under this license will have to be scrutinized on a case-by-case basis for us to determine whether the work can be be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] None of the above statements approximates my opinion. Part 2. Status of Respondent Please mark with an X the following item only if it is true. [ ] I am a Debian Developer as described in the Debian Constitution as of the date on this survey. -- Romain FRANCOISE [EMAIL PROTECTED] | You know that old saying, it's a miracle -- http://orebokech.com/ | that you always hurt the ones | you love? Well it works both | ways. pgplcuxi5136r.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Branden Robinson) writes: Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2 Please mark with an X the item that most closely approximates your opinion. Mark only one. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is not a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Works under this license would require significant additional permission statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. In general, works under this license would require no additional permission statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, can be a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines, but only if certain restrictions stated in the license are not exercised by the copyright holder with respect to a given work. Works under this license will have to be scrutinized on a case-by-case basis for us to determine whether the work can be be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] None of the above statements approximates my opinion. Part 2. Status of Respondent Please mark with an X the following item only if it is true. [ X ] I am a Debian Developer as described in the Debian Constitution as of the date on this survey. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8 http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/ iD8DBQE/RTB4ZKfAp/LPAagRAn+DAJwPUA4uY42sE9Qqq0kaOM9XoIhWgACfX8EB Uk3hEv12UQyuGwKOv7EXSBQ= =vbJu -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
=== CUT HERE === Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2 Please mark with an X the item that most closely approximates your opinion. Mark only one. [ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is not a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Works under this license would require significant additional permission statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. In general, works under this license would require no additional permission statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, can be a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines, but only if certain restrictions stated in the license are not exercised by the copyright holder with respect to a given work. Works under this license will have to be scrutinized on a case-by-case basis for us to determine whether the work can be be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] None of the above statements approximates my opinion. Part 2. Status of Respondent Please mark with an X the following item only if it is true. [ ] I am a Debian Developer as described in the Debian Constitution as of the date on this survey. === CUT HERE ===
Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
Le jeu 21/08/2003 à 07:09, Branden Robinson a écrit : === CUT HERE === Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2 Please mark with an X the item that most closely approximates your opinion. Mark only one. [ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is not a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Works under this license would require significant additional permission statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. In general, works under this license would require no additional permission statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, can be a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines, but only if certain restrictions stated in the license are not exercised by the copyright holder with respect to a given work. Works under this license will have to be scrutinized on a case-by-case basis for us to determine whether the work can be be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] None of the above statements approximates my opinion. Part 2. Status of Respondent Please mark with an X the following item only if it is true. [ X ] I am a Debian Developer as described in the Debian Constitution as of the date on this survey. === CUT HERE === -- .''`. 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: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
=== CUT HERE === Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2 Please mark with an X the item that most closely approximates your opinion. Mark only one. [ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is not a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Works under this license would require significant additional permission statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. In general, works under this license would require no additional permission statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, can be a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines, but only if certain restrictions stated in the license are not exercised by the copyright holder with respect to a given work. Works under this license will have to be scrutinized on a case-by-case basis for us to determine whether the work can be be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] None of the above statements approximates my opinion. Part 2. Status of Respondent Please mark with an X the following item only if it is true. [ X ] I am a Debian Developer as described in the Debian Constitution as of the date on this survey. === CUT HERE === -- .. | paul cannon [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | http://people.debian.org/~pik/ | pgp8lnemfhGPi.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
Matthew Garrett, on 2003-08-21, 16:13, you wrote: Oh, now, come on. The GFDL plainly /isn't/ compatible with the DFSG. Whether or not it /has/ to be compatible with the DFSG in order to be in Debian is an entirely separate issue, but the above is obviously not true. I was asked for my opinion, here it is. I feel the GFDL is free enough for my heart does not beat for the bureaucratic following of iron rules but for the sake of our users. And our users are not just the readers of GFDL-licensed documentation but also their authors, and they deserve freedom, too. This is why I made this very selection and this discussion ends here. Joerg -- Joerg joergland Wendland GPG: 51CF8417 FP: 79C0 7671 AFC7 315E 657A F318 57A3 7FBD 51CF 8417 pgpOMBBnbYAGI.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2 Please mark with an X the item that most closely approximates your opinion. Mark only one. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is not a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Works under this license would require significant additional permission statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. In general, works under this license would require no additional permission statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, can be a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines, but only if certain restrictions stated in the license are not exercised by the copyright holder with respect to a given work. Works under this license will have to be scrutinized on a case-by-case basis for us to determine whether the work can be be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] None of the above statements approximates my opinion. Part 2. Status of Respondent Please mark with an X the following item only if it is true. [ ] I am a Debian Developer as described in the Debian Constitution as of the date on this survey.
Re: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
Joerg Wendland [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Matthew Garrett, on 2003-08-21, 16:13, you wrote: Oh, now, come on. The GFDL plainly /isn't/ compatible with the DFSG. Whether or not it /has/ to be compatible with the DFSG in order to be in Debian is an entirely separate issue, but the above is obviously not true. I was asked for my opinion, here it is. I feel the GFDL is free enough for my heart does not beat for the bureaucratic following of iron rules but for the sake of our users. And our users are not just the readers of GFDL-licensed documentation but also their authors, and they deserve freedom, too. This is why I made this very selection and this discussion Wouldn't it be better, then, to say that you don't think the GFDL meets the DFSG, but that you think it shouldn't have to? Certainly, you don't appear to believe that the GFDL both should have to meet the DFSG and does so. ends here. So it does. I greatly enjoy the freedom to derive a work from that which you sent. Just think -- if you'd licenses your message under the GFDL, not only would I have had to include a History section in this reply, but it would have been illegal for you to read it, thanks to the opportunistic encryption of SMTP/TLS! -Brian
Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
=== CUT HERE === Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2 Please mark with an X the item that most closely approximates your opinion. Mark only one. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is not a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Works under this license would require significant additional permission statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. In general, works under this license would require no additional permission statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, can be a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines, but only if certain restrictions stated in the license are not exercised by the copyright holder with respect to a given work. Works under this license will have to be scrutinized on a case-by-case basis for us to determine whether the work can be be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] None of the above statements approximates my opinion. Part 2. Status of Respondent Please mark with an X the following item only if it is true. [ ] I am a Debian Developer as described in the Debian Constitution as of the date on this survey. === CUT HERE === -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/
MBSOPPRAPP02 found VIRUS= I-Worm.Sobig.f.txt (Kaspersky) virus
MBSOPPRAPP02 found Unknown infected with VIRUS= I-Worm.Sobig.f.txt (Kaspersky) worm. The message is currently Purged. The message, Re: Wicked screensaver, was sent from debian-legal@lists.debian.org
MBSOPPRAPP02 found FILE FILTER= *.pif file
MBSOPPRAPP02 found movie0045.pif matching FILE FILTER= *.pif file filter. The file is currently Purged. The message, Re: Wicked screensaver, was sent from debian-legal@lists.debian.org
Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
|| On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 10:07:20 -0500 || John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: jg Before I reply, I should add I still see it as wrong and misleading to apply jg *software* guidelines to *documentation*, which to me are fundamentally jg different beasts. Thus, I see the question as rather misleading. Precisely. I too believe that software and documentation should be treated seperately and hence went for the last option. -- Ramakrishnan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Use Free Software -- Help stamp out Software Hoarding!
Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
Joerg Wendland wrote: I was asked for my opinion, here it is. I feel the GFDL is free enough for my heart does not beat for the bureaucratic following of iron rules but for the sake of our users. And our users are not just the readers of GFDL-licensed documentation but also their authors, and they deserve freedom, too. This is why I made this very selection and this discussion ends here. You said that the GFDL was DFSG free. It's not. It fails the DFSG on multiple counts. Do you really believe tht the GFDL is DFSG free? -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 12:09:54AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: === CUT HERE === Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2 Please mark with an X the item that most closely approximates your opinion. Mark only one. [ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is not a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Works under this license would require significant additional permission statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. In general, works under this license would require no additional permission statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, can be a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines, but only if certain restrictions stated in the license are not exercised by the copyright holder with respect to a given work. Works under this license will have to be scrutinized on a case-by-case basis for us to determine whether the work can be be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] None of the above statements approximates my opinion. Part 2. Status of Respondent Please mark with an X the following item only if it is true. [ ] I am a Debian Developer as described in the Debian Constitution as of the date on this survey. === CUT HERE === -- Rob Weir [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Do I look like I want a CC? Words of the day: Marxist Firewalls asset morse 64 Vauxhall Cross terrorist MD2 pgpA6RRyRIxLJ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
On Aug 21, Branden Robinson wrote: === CUT HERE === Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2 Please mark with an X the item that most closely approximates your opinion. Mark only one. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is not a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Works under this license would require significant additional permission statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. In general, works under this license would require no additional permission statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, can be a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines, but only if certain restrictions stated in the license are not exercised by the copyright holder with respect to a given work. Works under this license will have to be scrutinized on a case-by-case basis for us to determine whether the work can be be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] None of the above statements approximates my opinion. Part 2. Status of Respondent Please mark with an X the following item only if it is true. [ X ] I am a Debian Developer as described in the Debian Constitution as of the date on this survey. === CUT HERE === Chris -- Chris Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://blog.lordsutch.com/ pgpxGZT8UL2oQ.pgp Description: PGP signature
