On Fri, Sep 19, 2003 at 08:53:47PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Josselin Mouette wrote:
> >True, but the swirl logo fails the DFSG as well, as you can only use it
> >to refer to the project, and it doesn't allow explicitly other uses.
> Quite correct. It should be relicensed, under a permissi
Hi,
On Fri, Sep 19, 2003 at 11:12:17PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
>
> > On Fri, Sep 19, 2003 at 12:21:48AM -0500, Ryan Underwood wrote:
> > > I am trying to get my improved fork of the icculus Wolf3d ready for
> > > release. There are tons of new
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You seem to be suggesting that this would satisfy the distribution terms of
> the GFDL. Are you really suggesting this? If so, we may have a solution.
Alas, not a solution. We promise our users that they can legally
distribute Debian. Under yo
Josselin Mouette wrote:
>True, but the swirl logo fails the DFSG as well, as you can only use it
>to refer to the project, and it doesn't allow explicitly other uses.
Quite correct. It should be relicensed, under a permissive copyright
licence, with a note saying:
* This copyright license does n
Matthieu Roy wrote:
>Does everybody on that list, that thinks that GNU
>political/historical/philosophical/ texts must be DSFG compliant to be
>distributed by Debian, also thinks that the Debian logos must be DFSG
>compliant?
There's a difference at the moment between "distributed by Debian" and
On Friday, Sep 19, 2003, at 19:43 US/Eastern, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
I, um, think he meant me, given I *did* say there is a violation of
DFSG 2, since binary-only distribution is not permitted.
Ah! Yeah, that must be what I meant...
I'm curious: Considering the GPL prohibits binary-only dis
RMS wrote (in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200309/msg00776.html):
>Part of the document can be a separate file,
>because a document can be more than one file.
>
>This detail of wording doesn't make a difference that I can see.
Aha. I just found a way to put GFDL manuals
Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
>OK. I have a copy of Emacs here, licensed to me under the GNU GPL2.
>I have made some modifications to it, and updated the changelogs and
>history notes. I wish to give it to a friend. Section 2b requires
>that I distribute my new program, Sniffmacs, "under the terms
Scripsit Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Please file a bug report against the "xfree86" package and include a
> reference to this thread's URL on lists.debian.org.
OK, done. Bug #211675.
> Thanks for bringing this to my attention, Henning.
Hm, I don't know... Further investigation revea
Dylan Thurston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 2003-09-18, Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Eben Moglen has told RMS that it's ok for us to do the Unicode trick:
> > to alter it into some other form, and then that new form is entirely
> > unrestricted by the license. And t
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The GNU Project's motive for using invariant sections is not the issue
> > here; that's a GNU Project decision, not a Debian decision.
>
> You are arguing that you should have a voice in what Debian does.
>
> I have said nothing of the
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Can you give us an indication as to what the clarified text will look
> like, or what restrictions it will contain? [Just so we're all on the
> same page with regards to the sections problems.]
>
> I've decided not to do that. The develo
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Manuals are not free software, because they are not software.
> The DFSG very clearly treats "software" and "programs" as
> synonymous.
In that case, the DFSG prohibits their distribution outright.
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The DFSG says that we must have the right to modify everything, at
> least by the use of patch files.
>
> I cannot find that in the DFSG. If you are talking about this part,
>
> The license may restrict source-code from being distribut
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This is not allowed for a GFDL manual, is it?
>
> The GFDL allows you to make any changes you like in the technical
> substance of the manual, just as the TeX license allows you to make
> any changes you like in the technical substance of TeX.
"Brian W. Carver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Anthony DeRobertis writes:
>> I understand that; in fact, I was one of the many people who pointed out
>> that problem. But that's not what Brian said --- he said that there is a
>> violation of DFSG 2 "since it does not permit 'distribution in sourc
Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > One could do that, but it wouldn't help because the FSF documentation
> > under discussion is neither a logo nor in the category of
> > "political/philosophical/historical texts".
>
> The GNU Documentation under discussion _is_ in the category of
> political/p
On 2003-09-19 13:22:10 +0100 Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I've decided not to do that. The development of GNU licenses is not a
Debian issue.
I wonder if the only FDL consultation comment posted on their site
that gets any sort of reply was from a GNU project member? For the
On 2003-09-19 22:00:01 +0100 Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm a bit puzzled if you are about to claim that you truly _require_
to be able to modify the GNU Manifesto while, at the same time, not
giving the right to anyone to print an Official Debian Logo on a
tshirt is something complet
On 2003-09-19 22:06:34 +0100 Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The GNU Documentation under discussion _is_ in the category of
political/philosophical/historical texts. Only these texts can be
invariant in the GFDL.
Sorry, it is the entire work which must be DFSG-free, not only some
smalle
Anthony DeRobertis writes:
I understand that; in fact, I was one of the many people who pointed out
that problem. But that's not what Brian said --- he said that there is a
violation of DFSG 2 "since it does not permit 'distribution in source
code as well as compiled form'." That's what I'd like
Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> And, finally, if I correctly understood this page, if I get an
> official Debian CD, with this Logo as cover, I'm not able to provide
> a copy of this official Debian CD unless I completely follow a process
> documented at www.debian.org.
I forgot one thi
Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
>
>> Le ven 19/09/2003 à 17:39, Mathieu Roy a écrit :
>> > However, Debian has a pretty clear definition, according to supposedly
>> > Bruce Perens's statements. According to this clear definition, the
>> > o
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> However, does not it mean that Debian recognize that in some case
> some "software" (in the large sense) can be non-DFSG and still
> acceptable?
Aceptable for what? We have our share of non-DFSG software in
non-free, and we haven't gone on a holy war to ri
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
> On Fri, Sep 19, 2003 at 12:21:48AM -0500, Ryan Underwood wrote:
> > I am trying to get my improved fork of the icculus Wolf3d ready for
> > release. There are tons of new features, but I am unclear on the
> > license.
>
> Could you please post th
On 2003-09-19 19:32:36 +0100 Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Do you really believe in this nonsense? Or you just want to
make a random accusation?
I see no nonsense and am uncertain to what you refer.
Your continued failure to provide any evidence to support your claim
that "Rob
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
> > So the next step seems obvious to me, Debian have make a choice:
> > - follow the strict definition of DFSG promoted by many
> > persons on that list and move the Official Debian Logo to
> > non-free.
> > - th
On 2003-09-19 19:37:59 +0100 Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, 17 Sep 2003, Matthew Garrett wrote:
As has been previously pointed out, fair use is far from a universal
concept.
Berne Convention, art. 10 par. 1
Par 2 says that the extent is a matter for national legislation
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
> Le ven 19/09/2003 à 17:39, Mathieu Roy a écrit :
> > However, Debian has a pretty clear definition, according to supposedly
> > Bruce Perens's statements. According to this clear definition, the
> > official Debian Logo should go in non-free.
>
>
Fedor Zuev wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Sep 2003, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >As has been previously pointed out, fair use is far from a universal
> >concept.
>
> Berne Convention, art. 10 par. 1
That's not fair use. Paragraph 1 deals with citations. It's
paragraph 2 that provides for fair use. And pa
On Sat, Sep 20, 2003 at 03:37:59AM +0900, Fedor Zuev wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Sep 2003, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>
> >Richard Stallman wrote:
> >>You have mistaken the objection. There is no reason to think it would
> >>be a small fractional increase, especially since little parts of
> >>man
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003, Richard Stallman wrote:
> Can you give us an indication as to what the clarified text will look
> like, or what restrictions it will contain? [Just so we're all on the
> same page with regards to the sections problems.]
>
> I've decided not to do that. The develop
On Fri, Sep 19, 2003 at 12:21:48AM -0500, Ryan Underwood wrote:
> I am trying to get my improved fork of the icculus Wolf3d ready for
> release. There are tons of new features, but I am unclear on the
> license.
Could you please post the text of the license to the mailing list in
plain text forma
On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 10:19:54PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> I just discovered that some of the copyright statements in xfree86's
> copyright file have clauses that we usually consider non-free.
[...]
> (from the "GLX PUBLIC LICENSE", and as far as I can eyeball also repeated
> verbatim in th
On Fri, Sep 19, 2003 at 10:48:46AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> Oh, wow, I'm not sure anybody was expecting *months*.
>
> That helps, anyway. If we had tried to go ahead, it's pretty much
> guaranteed that some people would have used your recent mails as an
> excuse to delay even longer; they c
On Fri, 2003-09-19 at 08:22, Richard Stallman wrote:
> That clause appears to neglect the fact that there are things
> other than software in the system.
The Social contract uses the "that which is not hardware" definition of
software. In that sense, there is nothing but software in Debian.
sig
On Wed, 17 Sep 2003, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>Richard Stallman wrote:
>>You have mistaken the objection. There is no reason to think it would
>>be a small fractional increase, especially since little parts of
>>manuals--single paragraphs even--are useful reusable bits just in the
>>
On Sun, 14 Sep 2003, MJ Ray wrote:
>licence according to FSD. Note that freedom for certain modified
>versions (for example, even a work containing only the GNU Manifesto
>invariant section) are effectively blocked, which triggers this
>section of reasoning.
Do you really believe in this
On Fri, Sep 19, 2003 at 01:39:34PM -0400, Etienne Gagnon wrote:
> Josselin Mouette wrote:
> >>>This prompts an interesting question: Does the Official Debian logo
> >>>meet the DFSG test?
> >>
> >>No, but I'm pretty sure that we don't include the official logo in the
> >>Debian distribution.
> >
>
On Fri, Sep 19, 2003 at 01:39:34PM -0400, Etienne Gagnon wrote:
>
> My "gdm" logon screen has the swirl, as did my default gnome
> background when I installed it (very long ago). I did not use any
> package not in main to do so, therefore I think there are swirls
> sitting around in main.
Swirl
Josselin Mouette wrote:
This prompts an interesting question: Does the Official Debian logo
meet the DFSG test?
No, but I'm pretty sure that we don't include the official logo in the
Debian distribution.
True, but the swirl logo fails the DFSG as well, as you can only use it
to refer to the p
On Thu, 2003-09-18 at 12:05, Richard Stallman wrote:
> That is why I recently asked to hear from Debian developers whether
> they are still making up their minds about the matter and whether they
> are interested in what I have to say about it. If this is generally
> not the case, I will stop dis
Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Does everybody on that list, that thinks that GNU
> political/historical/philosophical/ texts must be DSFG compliant to be
> distributed by Debian, also thinks that the Debian logos must be DFSG
> compliant?
No. I think it's much easier for Debian to make an ex
Le ven 19/09/2003 à 17:39, Mathieu Roy a écrit :
> However, Debian has a pretty clear definition, according to supposedly
> Bruce Perens's statements. According to this clear definition, the
> official Debian Logo should go in non-free.
We don't ship the official (jar+swirl) Debian logo in main.
Perhaps we have hit the key parts of the disagreement, finally. I would
love to get some further clarification from RMS on his views, so I have
asked a few questions below. I have made 4 points in response to this
one paragraph, but the questions are in points 3 and 4.
RMS wrote:
By contras
RMS said: (in re
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200309/msg00652.html):
All I want to say about the new issue is that a small fractional
increase in size for a large collection of manuals is not a big deal.
That's not enough to make a license non-free.
The GFDL, however,
In
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200309/msg00563.html,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1. Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software
This means, that everything in Debian will be free *and* that everything
in Debian will be software. If you believe that political essays cannot
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thursday, Sep 18, 2003, at 11:24 US/Eastern, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
>
>> Also, the requirement to distribute a transparent form appears to
>> violate DFSG 2, since it does not permit "distribution in source code
>> as well as compiled form".
>
>
On Friday 19 September 2003 14:22, Richard Stallman wrote:
> > Manuals are not free software, because they are not software.
> > The DFSG very clearly treats "software" and "programs" as
> > synonymous.
>
> And we very clearly treat everything in Debian as software (see the
> fi
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
> Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > > Manuals are not free software, because they are not software.
> > > The DFSG very clearly treats "software" and "programs" as
> > > synonymous.
> >
> > And we very clearly treat ev
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Can you give us an indication as to what the clarified text will look
> like, or what restrictions it will contain? [Just so we're all on the
> same page with regards to the sections problems.]
>
> I've decided not to do that. The develop
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Manuals are not free software, because they are not software.
> > The DFSG very clearly treats "software" and "programs" as
> > synonymous.
>
> And we very clearly treat everything in Debian as software (see the
> first clause of the
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-09-18 at 16:05, Walter Landry wrote:
>
> > The definition of transparent is similar to, but not the same as
> > source. For example, the "source" for a LyX document is not
> > "transparent".
>
> I understand that; in fact, I was one of
Richard Stallman wrote:
Can you give us an indication as to what the clarified text will look
like, or what restrictions it will contain? [Just so we're all on the
same page with regards to the sections problems.]
I've decided not to do that. The development of GNU licenses is not a
> Manuals are not free software, because they are not software.
> The DFSG very clearly treats "software" and "programs" as
> synonymous.
And we very clearly treat everything in Debian as software (see the
first clause of the Social Contract).
That clause appears to neglect t
Can you give us an indication as to what the clarified text will look
like, or what restrictions it will contain? [Just so we're all on the
same page with regards to the sections problems.]
I've decided not to do that. The development of GNU licenses is not a
Debian issue.
On Thu, Sep 18, 2003 at 10:43:08PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-09-18 at 20:37, Andrea wrote:
>
> > Yes, I'm traditionalist. Software is anything that can be treated as a
> > sequence of bits in a computer. Documentation is software. Ham
> > sandwiches aren't. :)
>
> ... at lea
Le ven 19/09/2003 à 03:55, Don Armstrong a écrit :
> On Thu, 18 Sep 2003, Etienne Gagnon wrote:
> > This prompts an interesting question: Does the Official Debian logo
> > meet the DFSG test?
>
> No, but I'm pretty sure that we don't include the official logo in the
> Debian distribution.
True, b
On Thu, Sep 18, 2003 at 06:48:48PM -0700, Bruce Perens wrote:
> What do you mean failed utterly? We haven't even begun discussions
> and this could not take less than months.
>
> I am on the geek cruise and can't email much this week. Since GFDL documents
> are not going to change instantly, I su
Hello,
I am trying to get my improved fork of the icculus Wolf3d ready for
release. There are tons of new features, but I am unclear on the
license.
The original license supplied with the wolf3d sources (released in 1995)
seems to be the same license that the proprietary wolf3d itself was
distr
60 matches
Mail list logo