Re: Creative Commons 3.0 Public draft -- news and questions
Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED] Does the anti-DRM requirement in the CCPL 3.0 draft, without a parallel distribution proviso, make it incompatible with the DFSG? It means that any work under any CC 3.0 does not follow the DFSG unless the licensor grants additional permission, IMO. A minimal fix is to change restrict in the TPM ban phrases to have the intent or effect of restricting which allows TPM/non-TPM parallel works and this problem goes away. That phrase has been in CC licences before (CC Scotland 2.5, for example). Why doesn't CC do that? Are any details of the iSummit affiliates meetings recorded? How does CC make decisions? They know how we make decisions and seem to be hoping the debian project backs down when pushed to a general resolution. Can we try to make CC put this issue out to a general resolution? Who are CC's members? I know some CC supporters who are sympathetic, but I don't think I've met any with established voting power yet. 1. Was GR 2006-01 an exception to the DFSG, or a clarification of our principles? Neither. It was a single-point compromise interpretation. So, the other two questions asked are irrelevant. [...] I'd love to hear some opinions on the matter, and I'd be happy to collect them and present them to Creative Commons. It's not clear how long the public comments period is, so there is a time factor here. Thank you! I am not allowed to post to cc-licenses at this time. I have discussed other aspects, including some downsides of TPM-bans, at http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/fc-uk-discuss/2006-August/001173.html which is a more public list than cc-, as far as I know. Best wishes, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Creative Commons 3.0 Public draft -- news and questions
On Fri, 2006-11-08 at 09:34 +0100, MJ Ray wrote: How does CC make decisions? They know how we make decisions and seem to be hoping the debian project backs down when pushed to a general resolution. If they were going to play the heavy with us, why would they bother making all the other changes we asked for? What would be the point? It's pretty clear that the Debian Project is not militantly united against anti-TPM clauses. I'm not sure, if we have a GR on the matter, whether this is backing down or not. Can we try to make CC put this issue out to a general resolution? You can, if you want. I don't think that's Debian's place, though. Who are CC's members? I know some CC supporters who are sympathetic, but I don't think I've met any with established voting power yet. Get those people to post on cc-licenses. 1. Was GR 2006-01 an exception to the DFSG, or a clarification of our principles? Neither. It was a single-point compromise interpretation. So, the other two questions asked are irrelevant. It's not clear to me what that means. Does that mean that the anti-TPM clause in the FDL is compatible with the DFSG, or not? [...] I'd love to hear some opinions on the matter, and I'd be happy to collect them and present them to Creative Commons. It's not clear how long the public comments period is, so there is a time factor here. Thank you! I am not allowed to post to cc-licenses at this time. Why not? I have discussed other aspects, including some downsides of TPM-bans, at http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/fc-uk-discuss/2006-August/001173.html which is a more public list than cc-, as far as I know. So, you're complaining to a third party? What good does that do? Maybe it'd be better to make this more direct. ~Evan -- Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Debian Project (http://www.debian.org/) signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: DFSG as Licence?
Hello Ben and *, sorry for the late reponse, but I was in Palestine and have gotten trouble with the Israelian Authority... (They give bullschit on Diplomatic immunity!) Am 2006-06-12 17:37:16, schrieb Ben Finney: Michelle Konzack [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Since I am using Debian/main only (with the exception of libdvdcss2) since more then 7 years now I want to say, that my Software any Licence which comply with the DFSG. That's great, it makes the free software community stronger and makes your work useful to more people. Is there allready a licence which use the term DFSG as licence? The DFSG doesn't specify license terms. It's a set of guidelines for judging the freedoms granted to recipients of a work. This judgement concerns not just the license from copyright, or patent, or trademark, or any other particular monopolies. Rather, it addresses the combined set of effective freedoms granted to the recipient of the work. Thus, it wouldn't make much sense to treat the DFSG as a license. I was thinking to use the term: Licence: This software is under any Licence which complay with the Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG). I am thinking, that this makes my standpoint more clear as telling users: This software is under GPL vXX. I fully aggree with the Debian philosophy and this is why I stay with it (even if it steals me sometimes th last nerv ;-) ) What do you think about it? Greetings Michelle Konzack -- Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/ # Debian GNU/Linux Consultant # Michelle Konzack Apt. 917 ICQ #328449886 50, rue de Soultz MSM LinuxMichi 0033/6/6192519367100 Strasbourg/France IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL question [Was: Re: cdrtools]
On Friday 11 August 2006 18:10 pm, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: I believe that the totaly interchangable option of specifying -static or not should not change the free-ness of the source or resulting binary. So if you link static and you agree that it is a violation that way then you should not be able to get away with it by linking dynamically. The GPL is viral in nature and specificaly made to work across linking boundaries. People should not be able to add non-free portitons to the source by hiding them in libraries. I agree, but then should and is sometimes disagree. But after thinking about it some more, I believe a dynamically linked binary together with the corresponding shared libraries should be considered as a distribution method for the complete program that gets assembled in a common address space. Consider for example the case of EvilCo, back before dynamic linking was widespread, trying to use a GPL'd library in their non-free program. They try to get around the GPL by distributing their compiled program code in a single .o file in a mere aggregate along with the GPL library .a file, and ask users to link the program themselves. This is obviously bogus; they've just created an alternate means of distribution of the resulting binary, and so the binary itself must be distributable under the terms of the GPL, which it isn't. And the case of a dynamically linked executable with shared libraries is almost exactly the same as this scenario, only it's the system dynamic linker doing the work instead of the user doing it manually. Anyway, as somebody else pointed out, this is off-topic for debian-devel, and I apologize. Please direct any replies to debian-legal (too bad kmail doesn't let me set Followup-To afaik). -- Daniel Schepler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
