not. It's a fundamentally non-free requirement. The ability to
make copies and sell them is a very basic freedom.
Would the FDL work in some fashion (given our
recent GR on the subject?)
Nope. GFDL allows selling copies too.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net
. It would be extremely unfortunate for Debian to change
its standards of freedom to merely distributable. Freedom to modify and
NOT distribute (or selectively distribute) are core freedoms IMO, though
the FSF seems to disagree.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net
by the license but would be non-free due to tripping a license
provision. Aside from that, misleading is a vague term, which will be
interpreted differently every time the question is asked. Also, what
about pseudonymous modifications?
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net
whether it is desirable or
doable to rebuild the documentation, but whether it is legally possible
to distribute such documents.
Legally possible: yes. Useful to Debian: no. I'd say to put it in
non-free or contrib even if it technically doesn't violate the DFSG.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED
, but this phrasing seems to open the door to api-level
requirements (like the filename or in-code version string cannot be
misleading, whatever that means).
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble
a fracture between GPLv2 and GPLv3, making an
explicit fracture between service-restricted and distribution-restricted
licenses doesn't seem out of the ballpark.
But it was just a thought. I don't expect real traction from it.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net
an appropriate copyright notice and notice
of lack of warranty. And even this is not required if the program as you
recieved it does not print such text, or the program you modified does not
read commands interactively when run.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net
, and by user, we mean any entity who claims to have had any
direct or indirect contact with information related to this program,
would you expect that to be GPLv3-compatible?
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject
Mark Rafn wrote:
My first suggestion would be to try to word a license clause you believe
meets the requirements, THEN figure out how to word GPLv3 to be
compatible with it. The extra layer of indirection is confusing.
quote who=Josh Triplett date=Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 12:34:27AM -0800
, which licensors could choose between.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-free
restrictions, so packages will need to be discussed case-by-case. And
people will always raise the but this is kinda free, and so useful,
let's just include it argument regardless.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED
that functionality. But I'll admit
this is a twist I haven't fully digested.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
at a page over my friend's shoulder, am I a user?
It really comes down to the requirement is meaningless because it's
trivial to work around, or the requirement is far too invasive and
non-free.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED
that I am the sole user of the
software, as I caused it to be run.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
that any attempt to limit
private modification (including hosted apps), or require distribution of
source when not distributing anything else is non-free.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe
On Fri, 3 Feb 2006 15:57:31 -0800 (PST), Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'm strongly of the opinion that any attempt to limit
private modification (including hosted apps), or require distribution of
source when not distributing anything else is non-free.
On Fri, 3 Feb 2006, David M.Besonen
writeup
for 3 common tests of DFSG freedom:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_Free_Software_Guidelines.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
alternatives.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
notification in most systems that does not
interfere with the fundamental freedom to make changes.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This discussion seems to have gone into the weeds about WHY someone
would want to make a change and whether Debian is able to make such
changes reasonably.
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006, Frank Küster wrote:
Well, only in part. A font that you can't rely on is mostly
of an API.
It seems a clear test: if I can't distribute a changed version that
can be dropped into a system without changing other software,
it ain't free.
What ever happenened to the LaTex license, by the way? That had the
same non-freeness.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http
using a BSD-like license for this, or nobody will be able
to redistribute it at all.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
of derived
work.
The copyright holder of a given library would have to make that statement
for the library in question for it to apply.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
are trying to impose use restrictions, not just
distribution restrictions.
As long as it's acknowledged to be non-free, we can probably stop using
d-l as the forum for it. This will be my last post to the list on the
topic for now. I'll reply privately of course.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL
the program so that my version is not designed to interact
with users through a computer network? Can someone else then use the
above exception to modify my version under the pure GPL?
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED
this
functionality, your work based on the Program is not required to provide
this functionality.)
means.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
as indicating that no
fee is required for the permission, not that the permission applies
only if no fee is involved.
Unless you have some reason to believe otherwise (in which case
clarification from upstream should be sought), I'd call this free.
IANADD, take with requisite grains of salt.
--
Mark
in the package and you're good to go.
However, IANAL and IANADD, so you might want someone else to second this
belief before proceeding too far with it.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
, and getting non-free resolved) should move
forward.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
it in
the first place.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
introduce a non-software archive, feel free to propose it.
This is an extreme vision of freedom I do not share.
This is a rational vision of freedom which I do share.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
would be amenable to this change?
Aside from one secondhand comment on this list, I've seen no indication
that the FSF is amenable to any discussion of possible changes.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
=== 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
: freedom to use a piece
of software is more fundamental than the freedom to modify or distribute
it.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
possible reason to prefer this requirement other than to
punish leeches? This seems a hugely bad motivation for a major license
change.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
and configuration information (e.g. passwords, customer
information, etc.) that are necessary to actually run the service?
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
(leaving the other reason,
which is that it works well). Once I have to start examining the license
of every piece of software I run on a server, I may as well just buy a
proprietary system. At least there I know I won't be forced to distribute
anything.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED
Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200303/msg00805.html
is a list of software uses that are hard to distinguish from each
other in a license, so would all require full source to be made publicly
available.
On Thu, 7 Aug 2003
On Thu, 7 Aug 2003, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
What are you trying to say here?
* That providing a service in this context necessarily includes the
mail-order typesetting scenario?
Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Of course it does. Why would delivery via paper confer fewer rights
license.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
the current state of
this discussion?
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
in total it would be nice if the result
gets a clear voting in the end.
I concur with Walter and Brendan - this looks Free to me. I also heartily
echo the appreciation for the work you put into making it so!
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There are a number of icons and images in
products whose original creator preferred to edit in photoshop, with crazy
psd files that contain layering, gamma, and other useful information. I
made further modifications to the resulting GIF file. My
of this license will be considered non-free.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
-- just on the home page.
I don't think there was consensus that either of these interpretations are
acceptible to Debian. Requiring a copyright notice on the homepage would
be unfree IMO.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
* page -- just on the home page.
Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't think there was consensus that either of these interpretations are
acceptible to Debian. Requiring a copyright notice on the homepage would
be unfree IMO.
On Mon, 2 Jun 2003, Brian T. Sniffen wrote
, but I think I'm missing something WRT the reason for
your comment. It never crossed my mind that a license author would expect
such a restriction to apply to original works. In this case, it even says
Derivative works must
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
the Affero discussion. I
personally think it's a non-free use restriction to declare that deliver
content to anyone other than You is equivalent to distribution of the
software.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
belong in main.
There is not consensus (that I've seen) on whether it's distributable at
all (i.e. whether this requirement conflicts with the statement that the
software is released under the GPL, or whether PHPNuke has a new license
which is like the GPL but includes this restriction).
--
Mark
for program documentation that
it not equally important for a novel. Likewise software itself -
documentation.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
hard for me to see the line between some documentation
doesn't need to be free to be useful and some software doesn't need to
be free to be useful. Both are true statements, but not relevant to
Debian (IMO).
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
.
We may disagree with RMS on this, but it's not helpful to call him insane ;)
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
or reimplementing
applications, I doubt anyone will be motivated enough to fork
documentation and noone'll be able to be as up-to-date as the
Emacs manual.
I see the motivations as very similar.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
mandates a splash screen be preserved is
ok.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
considered by Debian to be discriminatory,
as long as there's a free license available to every person, group, and
field of endeavor.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I will say it too. It's come up before, and been agreed that as long as
it does not discriminate to the point that it is non-free for any person,
group, or field of endeavor, then it is free.
On Mon, 5 May 2003, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
That isn't
* Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED] [030501 21:57]:
Under droit d'auteur, you're not allowed to grant unqualified permission
to the reciever of a work to make modifications or to distribute the work.
You cannot fulfil the GPL requirements, so you cannot distribute the work.
On Fri, 2 May 2003
Publication License and the GNU GPL.
I think this is a very good suggestion.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
attempts to
enforce these rights under common-law copyright.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
for a cruise missile, it
sounds like he would have a pretty strong claim (in this jurisdiction, at
least).
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
to modify in common-law areas?
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
On Wed, 30 Apr 2003, Henning Makholm wrote:
And I don't think that the author of a piece of software has any
literary or artistic reputation or character connected with it.
Scripsit Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You don't? I think that artistic reputation is among the common reasons
leaked in. If you consider any of these to be a strawman, please
formulate your own statement. My hope is to collect 3-10 thesis
statements which seem to summarize the majority of opinions.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
On Wed, 30 Apr 2003, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
On 20030429T133608-0700, Mark Rafn wrote:
Does anyone feel that their opinion does not roughly fall into one of the
following categories? If so, it would be nice to get a short statment of
opinion which stands on it's own rather than
) and as such it should be immutable (and,
of course, included in debian).
I disagree strongly. It should be freely modifiable (with appropriate
changelog and credits), and included in Debian. Or not included in Debian
at all.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
-removability a legal condition and opening the can of worms.
Almost. It would be free to state please include this section without
modification. It's still not free to have an immutable section, even if
it can be removed. It can be made free by removal of that section.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL
be encoded in the
original wording. That makes perfect sense, and is fundamentally
different from a copyrightable work in a definable way.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
that's not freely modifiable (including the
Social Contract and GNU Manifesto) in non-free, and work toward making
them free.
Claiming that documents which do not allow derived works can still be
part of Debian is arrogant, hypocritical, and simply wrong.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http
myself might understand? I'm particularly interested in how
they relate to the GFDL and why they would apply to documentation and not
to software.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
be
changed/removed (within the limits of GPL section 2c).
That said, I'd prefer Debian NOT remove such advertising, only that we
guarantee users the right to do.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
features beyond that are
required to qualify as acceptible.
As long as there's a machine-readable stream of bytes which the upstream
author reasonably claims is the complete work in her preferred editing
format, the work can be considered free, IMO.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http
a FAQ seems like the proper next step.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
to provide feedback
and sections of text where I can. Between this and the fact that IANADD,
I don't think I have standing to provide a second.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
Scripsit Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'm close on this one. does not identify itself as unmodified in any
way is harder for me to understand than identifies itself as
modified.
It is just a little less restrictive. Instead of requiring people to
make a positive action
to
remove un-free emacs documentation from Debian.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
modifications makes it
non-free.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
deciding that
freedoms vital to software aren't needed by other sequences of bits.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm close on this one. does not identify itself as unmodified in any
way is harder for me to understand than identifies itself as modified.
On Mon, 14 Apr 2003, Walter Landry wrote:
It is just a little less restrictive. Instead of requiring people
of changes, but without any requirement to display such a thing.
This would be similar to the GPL's clause 2a.
What do we think of this?
My objection to 5b has been pretty well addressed, so I won't claim that
it makes it non-free. Fewer requirements are better, though :)
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL
software :)
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
objection to 5b boils down to the fact that it doesn't
distinguish between API strings and user-copyright strings. As long as
the package contains no must-modify strings which are part of the
container's API, I don't object. I'd strongly prefer this were clarified
in the license.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL
should
be non-technical in nature.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
this. A requirement to use a specified
facility seems unfree to me at first sniff, but I could (yet again) be
reading too much into it.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
On Fri, 4 Apr 2003, Jeff Licquia wrote:
If the Base Format itself is free, why is this non-free?
On Thu, 2003-04-03 at 19:29, Mark Rafn wrote:
Does this conflict with DFSG#9? This license effectively insists that the
Base Format must be free software in order for the Work to be free
NO RIGHTS SHALL BE GIVEN TO THE USER.
Nobody, including Debian, can distribute this software.
And finally, it talks about users rather than distributors or modifiers.
No use may be restricted on free software.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
be willing
to allow distribution under pure GPL (especially if they're using any GPL
code themselves).
But, aside from that, there's not a lot of likelihood that asking again
will yield a different answer. Sorry.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
with this, as I recall from
the previous discussion something about using these strings to validate
modules. You might consider GPL-like wording for this.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
to under the last sentence of 5.a.2). And then give
the file to my friend, who has a base format which DOES validate. Nothing
prevents him using or distributing this file (which is just the Work I
gave him, he's not modifying it), right?
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
On Thu, 2003-04-03 at 14:41, Mark Rafn wrote:
It still depends on the platform that runs it to determine whether the
modification is allowed. It may be that this is free when distributed
with a base format that does no such validation and non-free otherwise.
On Thu, 3 Apr 2003, Jeff
scope.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Not at all. The GPL prohibits _distributing_ a GPL program linked against
GPL-incompatible libraries. Anyone is free to _use_ a GPL program as they
see fit. I can happily link any GPL software against anything I like,
though I'm not always allowed
. This is *or* but not *and* in my opinion. Don't you agree? What
exactly makes PDFlib lite non-free?
The use restrictions make it non-free.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
, or at the recipient's option, under the GPL
with additional permission to modify, distribute, and distribute
modifications when linked with insert definition of acceptible things
here.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
such a requirement
non-free.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
standard?
Some claim so, but I haven't heard any convincing argument that wouldn't
equally apply to software.
Or is there a way around the official version problem that makes
sense?
Sure, don't call the modified version official.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
-incompatible library at runtime, and to use that program. You just
can't distribute the GPL program and the library together.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
his program (including source, he wants to follow the GPL) to
his customer.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
to distribute along
with non-free scripts, the whole work (interpreter + non-GPL-compatible
scripts) is probably not distributable. The interpreter is, and the
script is, but not together.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
into non-free. It's free or it's not
distributable at all. Not distributable is my opinion given no
information but what Hugo has provided.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
1 - 100 of 195 matches
Mail list logo
