Re: Fwd: Final updates for this Python Policy revision
On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 01:00:48 + Anthony W. Youngman wrote: In message 20091216233823.af491478@firenze.linux.it, Francesco Poli f...@firenze.linux.it writes The second question may seem strange, but why copyleft license is used? Hopefully in order to prevent the distribution of proprietary derivative works... CLOSED derivative works. If it's copyright, it's proprietary. proprietary == property. If it's copyright, it has an owner, therefore it's property, therefore it's proprietary. Your reasoning does not seem incorrect. However, I use the term proprietary software as a synonym of non-free software (that is to say, anything that is not Free Software). In this regard, I follow the FSF terminology. -- New location for my website! Update your bookmarks! http://www.inventati.org/frx . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpYcisfMWTDL.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Fwd: Final updates for this Python Policy revision
Francesco Poli f...@firenze.linux.it writes: On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 01:00:48 + Anthony W. Youngman wrote: If it's copyright, it's proprietary. proprietary == property. If it's copyright, it has an owner, therefore it's property, therefore it's proprietary. Your reasoning does not seem incorrect. I'm doubtful that it's correct to say “If it's copyright, it has an owner”. Copyright is *not* a property right; it's a different monopoly right. Monopolies are held; that doesn't make the holder of a monopoly the “owner” in a property sense. IANAL, but it seems the attempt to frame copyright as property is not founded in its inception nor its effects. -- \“The industrial system is profoundly dependent on commercial | `\ television and could not exist in its present form without it.” | _o__)—John Kenneth Galbraith, _The New Industrial State_, 1967 | Ben Finney pgpiFSEaEUkbw.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Fwd: Final updates for this Python Policy revision
On 12/18/09, Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au wrote: I'm doubtful that it's correct to say “If it's copyright, it has an owner”. Copyright is *not* a property right; it's a different monopoly right. Monopolies are held; that doesn't make the holder of a monopoly the “owner” in a property sense. IANAL, but it seems the attempt to frame copyright as property is not founded in its inception nor its effects. As much as a lot of us want to disagree with it, the law does explicitly state that copyright is property - see e.g. Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) s196(1): Copyright is personal property... -- Andrew Donnellanandrew[at]donnellan[dot]name http://andrew.donnellan.name ajdlinux[at]gmail[dot]com http://linux.org.au -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Fwd: Final updates for this Python Policy revision
Andrew Donnellan ajdli...@gmail.com writes: On 12/18/09, Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au wrote: I'm doubtful that it's correct to say “If it's copyright, it has an owner”. Copyright is *not* a property right; it's a different monopoly right. Monopolies are held; that doesn't make the holder of a monopoly the “owner” in a property sense. IANAL, but it seems the attempt to frame copyright as property is not founded in its inception nor its effects. As much as a lot of us want to disagree with it, the law does explicitly state that copyright is property That is answering the question of what specific laws say in specific jurisdictions, which is not a question I raised. While it's true that the wording of copyright law in specific jurisdictions is where it actually matters, this sub-thread is about the correct *framing* of copyright. Which is why I'm arguing from the inception and effects of copyright, to point out that copyright wasn't conceived as property, nor is it sensible to see its effects in terms of property. So we should avoid the framing of copyright as *necessarily* a property right; that wasn't the case in the past, so we don't need to accept that it will remain so. Our framing should be in accordance with that. -- \ “He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his | `\ enemy from oppression.” —Thomas Paine | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Fwd: Final updates for this Python Policy revision
On 12/18/09, Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au wrote: Andrew Donnellan ajdli...@gmail.com writes: On 12/18/09, Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au wrote: I'm doubtful that it's correct to say “If it's copyright, it has an owner”. Copyright is *not* a property right; it's a different monopoly right. Monopolies are held; that doesn't make the holder of a monopoly the “owner” in a property sense. IANAL, but it seems the attempt to frame copyright as property is not founded in its inception nor its effects. As much as a lot of us want to disagree with it, the law does explicitly state that copyright is property That is answering the question of what specific laws say in specific jurisdictions, which is not a question I raised. While it's true that the wording of copyright law in specific jurisdictions is where it actually matters, this sub-thread is about the correct *framing* of copyright. Which is why I'm arguing from the inception and effects of copyright, to point out that copyright wasn't conceived as property, nor is it sensible to see its effects in terms of property. So we should avoid the framing of copyright as *necessarily* a property right; that wasn't the case in the past, so we don't need to accept that it will remain so. Our framing should be in accordance with that. I understand what you're saying - admittedly I'm not really keeping up with this thread so I haven't really been thinking about the context, but whenever we say that copyright shouldn't be treated as property, the fact is the law says it's property. Although in response to the original question about the term 'proprietary software', this being debian-legal we all understand the FSF use of the term. -- Andrew Donnellanandrew[at]donnellan[dot]name http://andrew.donnellan.name ajdlinux[at]gmail[dot]com http://linux.org.au -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Fwd: Final updates for this Python Policy revision
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 14:20:45 +0200 anatoly techtonik wrote: Hello, Hello... Following recent Python policy updates I wonder if GPL is really the license of choice for software documentation in Debian? IMHO, yes it is and it should be, really! The GPL is the best choice, whenever a copyleft license is being searched for. For any kind of work: programs, documentation, images, and so forth... This is my personal opinion, but is shared by others, as well. There are many other licenses available that are more clear to general public, such as Creative Commons. Creative Commons are not clear at all! Try and read their actual legal text: there are many open questions, such as the ones around the infamous anti-DRM clause, where even official Creative Commons representatives refused to disclose the intended meaning of the clause. There are other problematic clauses, IMHO. I summarized my concerns about CC-by-v3.0 (which is even simpler than CC-by-sa-v3.0) in the following message: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/07/msg00124.html As you can see, I am convinced that CC-by-v3.0 does *not* meet the DFSG. However, the FTP-masters disagree with me, and accept works released under the terms of this license (and of CC-by-sa-v3.0) in Debian main. Anyway, claiming that Creative Commons licenses are clear seems to be a huge stretch. The Creative Commons human-readable summaries may seem to be clear, but, unfortunately, they are just summaries (and not very accurate, BTW): they are not the actual legal terms... The second question may seem strange, but why copyleft license is used? Hopefully in order to prevent the distribution of proprietary derivative works... Does it allow to cite Debian Policy in books without making those books freely available? Within the quotation limits established by the applicable copyright law, it is always allowed to quote a published work, AFAIK: the Berne Convention seems to say that signatory countries have to implement quotation rights in their copyright laws. http://wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/trtdocs_wo001.html#P144_26032 Please, CC. Done. [...] One specific problem is that nobody understands what do you mean when releasing something that is not software under GPL. The Debian policy is digital information, therefore it is software (as opposed to hardware). Perhaps you mean “something that is not a program”. I mean that documentation for software is not software itself.Software can render documentation or process it. Documentation can be printed and still remain documentation. Software is not. [...] You seem to be fond of the strict meaning of the term software. There's also a broad meaning. Please see my essay on this distinction: http://www.inventati.org/frx/essays/softfrdm/whatissoftware.html Anyway, whatever you mean by software, it seems that this FAQ has already been pointed out to you on debian-python: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLOtherThanSoftware This should make it clear that the GPL *can* be used for non-program works. I hope this helps to clarify. -- New location for my website! Update your bookmarks! http://www.inventati.org/frx . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgp4sa9Ey4oJ0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Fwd: Final updates for this Python Policy revision
In message 20091216233823.af491478@firenze.linux.it, Francesco Poli f...@firenze.linux.it writes The second question may seem strange, but why copyleft license is used? Hopefully in order to prevent the distribution of proprietary derivative works... CLOSED derivative works. If it's copyright, it's proprietary. proprietary == property. If it's copyright, it has an owner, therefore it's property, therefore it's proprietary. Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery.demon.co.uk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Fwd: Final updates for this Python Policy revision
Hello, Following recent Python policy updates I wonder if GPL is really the license of choice for software documentation in Debian? There are many other licenses available that are more clear to general public, such as Creative Commons. The second question may seem strange, but why copyleft license is used? Does it allow to cite Debian Policy in books without making those books freely available? Please, CC. Original thread: http://old.nabble.com/Final-updates-for-this-Python-Policy-revision-to26754791.html -- anatoly t. -- Forwarded message -- From: anatoly techtonik techto...@gmail.com Date: Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 1:32 PM Subject: Re: Final updates for this Python Policy revision To: Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au Cc: debian-python debian-pyt...@lists.debian.org, debial-legal debial-le...@lists.debian.org Given that people are tired of discussing things they've already decided for themselves I CC this to debian-legal. On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 11:11 AM, Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au wrote: The Debian policy is software with source code: the DocBook source document. It is not clear why GPL notice doesn't stay in the source then and instead appear in binary form, but it seems ok. BTW, where is the link to Debian Python Policy source in http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/python-policy/ ? Shouldn't it be mentioned in documentation? 1. What am I free to do with with GPL'ed policy text? View it, examine its source code, modify it, and/or redistribute it under the same license terms. From your words it sounds like I can do just anything about it - remove authors, sign under my name and sell for a big money without distributing source code. Is that right? 2. Are you sure about that? Yes. The GPL grants those freedoms. What specific problems do you see from choosing the GPL for a work, and why should those problems concern us in this case? One specific problem is that nobody understands what do you mean when releasing something that is not software under GPL. The Debian policy is digital information, therefore it is software (as opposed to hardware). Perhaps you mean “something that is not a program”. I mean that documentation for software is not software itself.Software can render documentation or process it. Documentation can be printed and still remain documentation. Software is not. It can simply be deemed invalid in court and usual copyright rules apply. In this case it can be sought like the freedom authors choose to express their opinions about what did they meant later. You do not license for that. I don't know what would lead you to think the GPL would be deemed invalid for the Debian policy more than any other software work. Considering your argument that policy source is DocBook and .html is compiled binary software I am beaten. However, most people won't get that without lengthy discussion. I still have no idea why Policy authors have chosen GPL Perhaps, then, you should not assert they have chosen the GPL blindly. I still can't see the reasons why they couldn't choose GPL blindly. At the time when original author was forced to choose license there could not be other choice. All others are just followed. Now there are many more clear suitable licenses, that's why I ask. Maybe authors would like to choose non-copyleft license at all? Now, in the absence of a specific problem with applying the GPL to the software work that is the Debian policy, I don't think there's any more need to call for changing it. While nobody understands what does it all mean, let's leave it alone. =) -- anatoly t. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
