Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Q1.1) Are GFDL licensed works without invariant texts non-free?
Well, according to the RM team, and some developers (full
disclosure: myself included), yes, they are, even if there is no
explicit infraction of specific portions of our
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 10:28:18AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
That, I can agree with. So let's do that: let's see at what restrictions
are imposed, and whether they would allow me to modify the document so
that it would allow me to do anything I, as a Debian maintainer, would
want to do
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The point is there is no practical difference whether the GNU
Manifesto is placed in the preamble of the license or it is placed in
an invariant section.
Actually, there is. I think that the consensus of debian-legal has
been that we must accept the
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 01:45:40AM +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
Hereby I am proposing an amendment to the GR about GFDL opened by
Anthony Towns [Sun, 01 Jan 2006 15:02:04 +1000]
GNU Free Documentation License protects the freedom,
it is compatible with Debian Free Software Guidelines
I second
On Monday 23 January 2006 14:37, Xavier Roche wrote:
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 01:45:40AM +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
Hereby I am proposing an amendment to the GR about GFDL opened by
Anthony Towns [Sun, 01 Jan 2006 15:02:04 +1000]
GNU Free Documentation License protects the freedom,
it is
On Sun, Jan 22, 2006 at 04:19:49PM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:
[Bill Allombert]
Fact 1: The GFDL include this:
You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the
reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute.
Fact 2: The DFSG include this:
6.
Fact 3:
There exist fields of endeavours that require mandatory
encryption. For example, if you work in security-sensitive field,
you can be required to use a hard-drive with built-in encryption.
This technology certainly control who can read the disk. In
that case, you
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 12:59:54PM +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 10:28:18AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
That, I can agree with. So let's do that: let's see at what restrictions
are imposed, and whether they would allow me to modify the document so
that it would
* Pierre Habouzit [Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 04:23:46PM +0100]:
No, the GPL does not ban proprietary software companies from using
the software.
Not *yet*. GPLv3 does (with the Patent related clauses) ;p
I really don't think the current draft ban proprietary software
companies from using the
* Russ Allbery [Mon, 23 Jan 2006 09:17:14 -0800]:
If we're going to put all the options on the ballot, let's go ahead and
put them *all* on the ballot so that no significant group of DDs can later
claim that their opinion wasn't represented by the choices.
Latelly, I'm thinking that this
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006, Russ Allbery wrote:
In that case, could someone please propose an amendment which captures the
*other* regularly voiced opinion, namely that GFDL without invarient
sections is DFSG-free but with invarient sections is not, and phrase that
in an appropriate form as an
Adeodato Simó [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Russ Allbery [Mon, 23 Jan 2006 09:17:14 -0800]:
If we're going to put all the options on the ballot, let's go ahead and
put them *all* on the ballot so that no significant group of DDs can
later claim that their opinion wasn't represented by the
On Sun, Jan 22, 2006 at 03:42:39PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
And what? If someone tries to bring through a GR stating that
MS office warez can be distributed in main since it meets the DFSG,
one might rule that as frivolous and a waste of time.
I'm not convinced the
Em Seg, 2006-01-23 às 10:28 +0100, Wouter Verhelst escreveu:
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 10:41:25AM +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
If you do not have any access to my encrypted or chmod -r copy, then
I am not controllyng your reading or further copying
Really. If you maintain a copy of a GFDL'ed
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 03:23:02PM -0300, Daniel Ruoso wrote:
I mean, I know the license says the copies you make or distribute,
but, by definition, wouldn't it apply only to the act of distribution?
No. By default, copyright does not grant you a license to copy a work;
if the license allows
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
No, the GPL does not ban proprietary software companies from using
the software.
Not *yet*. GPLv3 does (with the Patent related clauses) ;p does it
makes GPLv3 non free ?
No, it imposes duties on entites who control patents (or have patents
[Bill Allombert]
There exist fields of endeavours that require mandatory
encryption. For example, if you work in security-sensitive
field, you can be required to use a hard-drive with built-in
encryption. This technology certainly control who can read the
disk. In that case, you
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 01:08:46PM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:
[Bill Allombert]
There exist fields of endeavours that require mandatory
encryption. For example, if you work in security-sensitive
field, you can be required to use a hard-drive with built-in
encryption. This
FWIW, I second the amendment quoted below.
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
GNU Free Documentation License protects the freedom,
it is compatible with Debian Free Software Guidelines
~~
(0) Summary
This is the position of Debian
[ Bcc'ed to -project, -devel and -legal, any further discussion and/or
seconds on -vote, please. ]
After reading all the recent posts about the GFDL on debian-vote, I
hereby propose the following General Resolution and ask for seconds.
--8--
The Debian Project asserts that
Works licensed under
also sprach Fabian Fagerholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.01.23.2241 +0100]:
After reading all the recent posts about the GFDL on debian-vote, I
hereby propose the following General Resolution and ask for seconds.
I don't have the time these days to follow the entire discussion.
How does your
On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 02:52:01PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Q1.1) Are GFDL licensed works without invariant texts non-free?
Well, according to the RM team, and some developers (full
disclosure: myself included), yes, they are, even if there is no
explicit infraction of
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 12:40:30PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Sun, Jan 22, 2006 at 03:42:39PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
And what? If someone tries to bring through a GR stating that
MS office warez can be distributed in main since it meets the DFSG,
one might rule
martin f krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
also sprach Fabian Fagerholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.01.23.2241 +0100]:
After reading all the recent posts about the GFDL on debian-vote, I
hereby propose the following General Resolution and ask for seconds.
I don't have the time these days to
Graham Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What sections of the DFSG do you think GFDL documents without invariant
sections fail?
I've been thinking a lot about this issue, and I think it basically
revolves around one's interpretation of the first two points of the DFSG:
| Free Redistribution
|
* Fabian Fagerholm ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060123 22:44]:
This General Resolution partly reverts an earlier decision by the
Release Management team, taken under delegation in accordance with the
Debian Constitution, to remove all works licensed under the GNU FDL from
the main section of the
[Bill Allombert]
No, the GPL does not ban proprietary software companies from
using the software.
Exactly. And neither does the GFDL ban people from using the
documentation if they work in a security field.
The GFDL does ban them: they are not allowed to copy the document on
[Russ Allbery]
If we're going to put all the options on the ballot, let's go ahead
and put them *all* on the ballot so that no significant group of DDs
can later claim that their opinion wasn't represented by the choices.
I think everyone is forgetting this one (IMHO pretty reasonable)
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 01:45:40AM +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
Hereby I am proposing an amendment to the GR about GFDL opened by
Anthony Towns [Sun, 01 Jan 2006 15:02:04 +1000]
(The proposal actually became formal on the 12th, and that's the one you're
amending, fwiw)
GNU Free Documentation
Manoj wrote:
So, I am seeking arguments and guidance from the developer
body whether issue 1 can, and should, be decidable by a general
resolution, or whether the freeness of the GFDL licensed works
without invariant clauses is incontrovertibly non-free, as the
license is
[Anton Zinoviev]
If Debian decided that GFDL is not free, this would mean that Debian
attempted to impose on the free software community alternative
meaning of free software, effectively violating its Social Contract
with the free software community.
That does not follow at all. If the
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 09:35:32AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Adeodato Sim? [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Russ Allbery [Mon, 23 Jan 2006 09:17:14 -0800]:
If we're going to put all the options on the ballot, let's go ahead and
put them *all* on the ballot so that no significant group of DDs
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 07:59:44PM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:
People should think long and hard about this requirement, independent
of whether it is DFSG-compliant. Think about the implications for the
ftp.debian.org mirror network, and for CD and DVD vendors. It's a
pretty significant
On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 00:02 +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
* Fabian Fagerholm ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060123 22:44]:
This General Resolution partly reverts an earlier decision by the
Release Management team, taken under delegation in accordance with the
Debian Constitution, to remove all works
On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 13:58 +1300, Anthony Towns wrote:
I don't think that makes any sense; ignoring the fact I don't think that
GFDL is non-free is a delegate's decision, I don't think it makes
any sense to take an action on this without offering an explanation of
why at the same time.
Scripsit Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Whether the GFDL conflicts with the DFSG is not a matter of opinion.
It either conflicts or it doesn't. The question is really who decides
whether it conflicts.
It now becomes time for the obligatory reminder that
The G in DFSG stands for
Le lundi 23 janvier 2006 à 01:45 +0200, Anton Zinoviev a écrit :
GNU Free Documentation License protects the freedom,
it is compatible with Debian Free Software Guidelines
And I thought Debian politics stayed away from populism...
--
.''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\
: :' :
Le dimanche 22 janvier 2006 à 13:13 -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
A) The delegates decision that the GFDL licensed works are non-free is
wrong, the GFDL meets the DFSG. Override the delegated decision,
and issue the following statement ...
B) The delegates decision that the GFDL
38 matches
Mail list logo
