On Mon, 2006-01-23 at 17:39 -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:
I think everyone is forgetting this one (IMHO pretty reasonable)
option:
- Works licensed under the terms of the GNU FDL but with no
invariant-foo comply (or may comply) with the DFSG, but we still
refuse to distribute them,
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 08:36:19AM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
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
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006, Fabian Fagerholm wrote:
[ 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.
I don't
Peter Samuelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[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
Steve Langasek wrote:
Wow, you think it's prudent to rely on an external organization with whom
you do not have a contract for your compliance with a license? Most
businesses would *not*, and I doubt most judges would either.
Aren't those same organizations relying on us to, say, not attempt
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 11:49:04PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
The overall subject can be software freedom but not necesarily in all
cases and certainly not in the case with the man-page. One can not
use simple quantity calculations in order to determine what the
overall subject of a
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 12:42:27AM +1300, Anthony Towns wrote:
It is naive to think that in order to fulfil this requirement of DFSG
Calling your fellow developers naive isn't terribly nice, you sell
out... ;)
I do not call my fellow developers naive because they do not think
this. In
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 07:59:44PM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:
That does not follow at all. If the GNOME Foundation chooses to
license documents as GFDL, it does not mean they believe it is a free
software license. It can just as easily signify that they do not
believe documentation
[In order not to write twice same thing and because this can be of
interest to many developers, I will reply to some of the comments of
Wouter Verhelst and Anthony Towns in this separate thread.]
My thesis is that the invariant sections do not contradict DFSG.
Notice that in this particular email
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 10:05:12AM +0100, David N. Welton wrote:
Steve Langasek wrote:
Wow, you think it's prudent to rely on an external organization with whom
you do not have a contract for your compliance with a license? Most
businesses would *not*, and I doubt most judges would
[Frank Küster]
- Works licensed under the terms of the GNU FDL but with no
invariant-foo comply (or may comply) with the DFSG, but we still
refuse to distribute them, because of the significant practical
problems that this would cause both for us and for our users.
If you propose
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 05:39:07PM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:
The notable practical problems I'm alluding to would include:
- All Debian mirrors must retain source packages one year after the
corresponding binary packages are deleted
The license does not require this because on all
On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 00:53 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
Yes, and under this license we would still have to keep those sources around
for a year *after* we stop distributing woody in binary form. And provide
for backups network reliability, since losing our copy would leave us in
violation
On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 09:22 +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
I don't second this, I don't want to vote on dozens of GR. Please
propose an amendment on the actual GR so that we have all the choices on a
single vote.
Why do you want two separate issues on the same ballot?
Anthony's proposal was
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 08:35:19PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Christopher Martin wrote:
Therefore, no modification of the DFSG would be required after the passage
of the amendment, since it would have been decided by the developers that
there was no inconsistency.
If a simple
* Fabian Fagerholm ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060124 08:03]:
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
On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 12:14 +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
I cannot recognize from this text which decision you mean. Sorry, but
you cannot do it that way. You need to specifically overwrite a decision
- and, BTW, if you want to do more than just to undo it (which means
that e.g. the ftp-masters
On Sunday 22 January 2006 16:45, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
In fact, the license says only this:
You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the
reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute
Did any of you actually *read* this? Read it.
What it actually
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The license is an agreement that regulates one action: the distribution,
right?
No, unfortunately.
Under copyright law, creating private copies, or private modified copies, is
one of the exclusive privileges of the copyright holder. You need permission
from the
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 06:39:41AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
On Sunday 22 January 2006 16:45, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
In fact, the license says only this:
You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the
reading or further copying of the copies you make or
On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 06:39 -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Did any of you actually *read* this? Read it.
What it actually *says*, means that storing a copy on a multiuser machine
with
UNIX permissions set so that it can't be read by everyone is *prohibited*.
The permissions are clearly
In the interests of completeness (sigh), I believe that a GR should be
proposed which states:
(portions copied from the GR by [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- hope he won't sue me for
copyright infringement)
The Debian Project asserts that
Works licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License,
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 06:39:41AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
On Sunday 22 January 2006 16:45, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
In fact, the license says only this:
You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the
reading or
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 07:28:18AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Anton Zinoviev wrote:
Derived Works
The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow
them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the
original software.
Notice
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 02:02:25PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
If you do chmod -r then I am unable to read the file and there
exists no reading to control.
Come on. If the directory is world (or just group) readable, there *is*
in fact something to read. Simply defining that every copy
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 02:02:25PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
If you do chmod -r then I am unable to read the file and there
exists no reading to control.
Come on. If the directory is world (or just group) readable, there *is*
in fact something
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 07:28:18AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Anton Zinoviev wrote:
Derived Works
The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow
them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 02:48:20PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 02:02:25PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
If you do chmod -r then I am unable to read the file and there
exists no reading to control.
Come on. If the
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 02:52:41PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
An other example is a reference sheet to be printed on the front- and
backside of a sheet of paper (autogenerated to always match the current
version) that contains the most important commands, functions or
whatever of the software
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't say the copy doesn't matter. I say that there is no process
of reading the copy. Do I control your reading of the image on my
So you agree that using permission bits is obstructing the reading, as
defined in the GFDL?
From WordNet (r) 2.0
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 18:25:54 +0100, Adeodato Simó [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
* 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
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 02:52:41PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
An other example is a reference sheet to be printed on the front- and
backside of a sheet of paper (autogenerated to always match the current
version) that contains the most important
On 1/24/06, Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(2) all copyright holders state that the requirement You may not use
technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of
the copies you make or distribute in section 2 is waived with respect to
copies you make and do
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 04:27:25PM +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
So you agree that using permission bits is obstructing the reading, as
defined in the GFDL?
From WordNet (r) 2.0 [wn]:
obstruct
v 1: hinder or prevent the progress or accomplishment of; His
brother
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 08:08:04 +0100, Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
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
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 04:55:19PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
It is not difficult to print two sheets - the invariant sections go on
the second sheet and FSF wins more popularity. :-)
This is just working around the issue.
Yes, it is.
Let the sheet instead be a coffee cup; in Germany
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 12:17:24PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Well, if you ask the people that use this man-page they will tell.
Uh. You'll have to make a choice here: either the text is the entirety
of _all_ manpages (in which case you can split off the invariant
sections and the FDL
* Peter Samuelson [Mon, 23 Jan 2006 17:39:07 -0600]:
- All Debian mirrors must retain source packages one year after the
corresponding binary packages are deleted
- Debian CD vendors must either ship source CDs to all customers
regardless of whether a customer wants them, or maintain
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 12:17:24PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
With respect to that freedom GPL is also non-free.
It is not. See below.
Anyone arguing for invariant sections by pointing to license texts has
missed all of the prior discussions on this topic, going back years.
Given the
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 04:24:23PM +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 02:52:41PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
An other example is a reference sheet to be printed on the front- and
backside of a sheet of paper (autogenerated to always match the current
version) that contains
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 10:09:53PM +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 04:27:25PM +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
So you agree that using permission bits is obstructing the reading, as
defined in the GFDL?
From WordNet (r) 2.0 [wn]:
obstruct
v 1: hinder or
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 10:10:19PM +0100, Adeodato Sim?? wrote:
* Peter Samuelson [Mon, 23 Jan 2006 17:39:07 -0600]:
- Neither Debian, nor the mirror network, nor the users, can use
rsync-over-ssh to update their CD images or individual packages.
Can't the Debian Project (by means of its
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 11:22:49AM +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
It is a fact confirmed by Richard Stallman, author of GFDL,
Cite, please.
I sent Richard Stallman a draft of my proposal where this paragraph
contained the words it is our belief that. The responce by Stallman
was You can
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 12:50:57AM -0600, Graham Wilson wrote:
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
[Margarita Manterola]
What would be the point of your proposal? I mean, if this proposal
won, it would be exactly the same as if the no GFDL in main at all
proposal won. So, why have yet another option?
The point is to explain to the world what is wrong with the GFDL. If
someone still wants
[Anton Zinoviev]
They clearly obstruct and control the reading or further copying of
that copy.
No, they can not. They can not control something that doesn't exist.
I have the root password. If I run 'su', I can read your document. If
I don't, I can't. You are now controlling how I
47 matches
Mail list logo
