On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 11:12:06 -0400, Peter S Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I understand that debian-legal acts in an advisory capacity, and is
very useful to maintainers who need advice on licensing issues. And
I shall stipulate that there is a
On Friday, 26 Sep 2003 09:43:26 -0500, Steve Langasek
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 02:39:01PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 14:20:21 -0400, Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] s
I understand that debian-legal acts in an advisory capacity,
and is
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 02:40:07PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
I did. I feel my packages are not buggy, lacking a position
statement by the project.
So, what we ship in main shall not be a function of whether the works in
it are DFSG-free
On Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 02:39:01PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
This decision to exclude GNU documentation from Debian, given
the sheer volume of GNU software in Debian, is likely to be
controversial. And we need to have a common stance on this issue. If
this is all so very obvious
the GNU FDL, and adding Invariant Sections
to manuals that previously had none.
This fact has been documented several times on the debian-legal mailing
list. Examples include the GAWK Manual, the GDB Manual, the GNU Make
Manual, the Texinfo Manual.
--
G. Branden Robinson| I
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am closing the bug again. You can, or course, call for the
tech ctte to override this, or a GR, or get me removed from the
project, as you wish.
I fully support your position on this.
When a law makes the majority of the population guilty
on this.
When a law makes the majority of the population guilty of a crime,
one should not obey it without careful deliberation.
...except the majority of the Debian Developer population isn't guilty
of shipping non-DFSG-free, GNU FDL-licensed materials in packages in
main.
--
G. Branden
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 02:00:42 -0400, Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
This package contains material licensed under the GNU FDL (the
manual) installed in usr/share/info/make.info*.gz. Debian-legal has
determined that the GNU FDL is not a free software license
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Don't bother reopening these reports, they shall be just as
summarily closed.
Feel free to modify the severity; I simply set it according to policy to
start with. :-P
There's nothing wrong with asking upstream to change its license (and I
wish you luck). The
On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 14:41:53 -0400, Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Don't bother reopening these reports, they shall be just as
summarily closed.
Feel free to modify the severity; I simply set it according to
policy to start with. :-P
I did. I
On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 14:20:21 -0400, Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Hi, On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 02:00:42 -0400, Nathanael Nerode
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
This package contains material licensed under the GNU FDL (the
manual) installed in usr/share/info/make.info
reopen 212525
tags 212525 sarge-ignore
thanks
On Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 02:39:01PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 14:20:21 -0400, Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
I understand that debian-legal acts in an advisory capacity,
and is very useful to maintainers
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I understand that debian-legal acts in an advisory capacity,
and is very useful to maintainers who need advice on licensing
issues. And I shall stipulate that there is a rough consensus on
debian-legal about the GFDL.
Right. There is
On Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 02:40:07PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
I did. I feel my packages are not buggy, lacking a position
statement by the project.
So, what we ship in main shall not be a function of whether the works in
it are DFSG-free or not, but shall instead depend on whether or
Documentation License, in its current form, satisfy
the Debian Free Software Guidelines?
My survey included four possible answers to this question; they included
three answers that represented points of view that I have seen on the
debian-legal mailing list as the GNU FDL has been discussed over
* Branden Robinson
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
Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What is a document, and what is a program? How can Debian even begin
to distinguish what makes free documentation different from free
software when we can't distinguish whether a particular piece of
data is software or documentation in the first place?
Steve == Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Steve I'd be happy to hear clarifications from the author and
Steve contemporaries, then; to be honest, my memory of Debian
Steve history isn't good enough to even know who to approach. (The
Steve debian-doc package is conspicuously lacking
On Thu, 11 Apr 2002, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
The membership also seems
to have shifted towards a more radical^H^H^H^Henthusiastic support of
_only_ free software, and helping people use whatever they wish on
Debian, while providing them with free alternatives, seems to be on
the wane.
On Thu, 2002-04-11 at 12:43, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
Witness the response to Jeroen.
I don't think we can draw any conclusion from the response to Jeroen
other than a lot of us think rudeness is a bad thing. (Including even
Jeroen himself, per his apology a few flames back in that thread.)
--
(followups to -legal, please)
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 05:17:48PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
Excerpting is allowed by copyright law under the fair use principle, and
one need not accept any license governing a work to exercise that right
to fair use.
Australia, for example, doesn't have a
Steve == Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Steve As a developer, I am by no means in a position to try to
Steve interpret what the phrasers of the Social Contract /really/
Steve meant to say. They wrote what they wrote, and I agreed to it
Steve as written; as did many other developers
On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 01:24:00PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Steve == Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Steve As a developer, I am by no means in a position to try to
Steve interpret what the phrasers of the Social Contract /really/
Steve meant to say. They wrote what they
On Tue, 9 Apr 2002, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 02:03:11PM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote:
The history section in my book, which is declared invarient in the
license, was written by Ian M. and has no technical bearing on the rest of
the book's content, but has every reason
On Wed, 2002-04-10 at 14:39, Steve Langasek wrote:
I'd be happy to hear clarifications from the author and contemporaries,
then; to be honest, my memory of Debian history isn't good enough to
even know who to approach. (The debian-doc package is conspicuously
lacking of the relevant
On Wed, 10 Apr 2002, Richard Braakman wrote:
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 02:03:11PM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote:
The freedom of expression of the author is what is being
protected by this clause. The freedom to express opinion without having
those statements twisted into something completely
On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 03:52:52PM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote:
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 02:03:11PM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote:
The history section in my book, which is declared invarient in the
license, was written by Ian M. and has no technical bearing on the rest of
the book's content,
On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 02:57:32PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
On Wed, 2002-04-10 at 14:39, Steve Langasek wrote:
I'd be happy to hear clarifications from the author and contemporaries,
then; to be honest, my memory of Debian history isn't good enough to
even know who to approach. (The
On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 03:52:52PM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote:
While I'm not sure that M. Mouse should be owned by anyone but Uncle Walt,
I understand the fear of the current copyright holder, given that I am in
direct contact with the spirit of the original Mr. Disney. He has some
very clear
On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 03:52:52PM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote:
Just look at the new and interesting stories being told by Hollywood about
everyone from Mr. I. Crane, to Peter Pan. All possible by the expiration
of those copyrights on the original books.
As a point of fact, Peter Pan is still
Thomas Hood wrote:
Several people said that they didn't want Debian documentation to be
full of political rants. They would like to reserve the right to
delete the parts they don't like from the manuals they package. But
what is this but censorship? And how is censorship compatible with
On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 19:03, Jamie Wilkinson wrote:
This one time, at band camp, Jamie Wilkinson wrote:
I wrote this up last night after getting fed up with this thread, then
modified it this morning after reading the thread on -legal that was
referred to. Flame away.
On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 15:21, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 10:01:15AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
Why? What freedoms are important for software that aren't for
documentation?
Revisionist history, for one. I'm sure the FSF wouldn't appreciate the
GCC document being
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 12:34:57AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
Not necessarily. Imagine part of the README for licquix, the hot new
free kernel that everyone's raving about:
Copyright (c) 1991 Linus Torvalds.
The Finn gets the copyright because he started it, even though it
wouldn't
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 10:01:15AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 01:42, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 07:27:40AM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
DFSG stand for Debian Free Software Guidelines. IMHO we ave to create a
DFDG, Debian Free Documentation
On Tue, 2002-04-09 at 00:55, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 10:01:15AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 01:42, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 07:27:40AM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
DFSG stand for Debian Free Software Guidelines. IMHO we ave to
Followups to -legal.
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 01:07:02AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
I mentioned Thoreau in another thread, and the Bible in another; though
they are free in every sense, perhaps that would be a place where we
would need to be careful about modifications. I'm sure John Stuart
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 10:02:47PM -0400, Thomas Hood wrote:
While I don't regard the DFSG as already applying to
documentation, the spirit of it is naturally extended to cover
documentation. I would suggest that the GFDL is a reasonable
license to use for free documentation --- free as in
On Mon, 8 Apr 2002, Joseph Carter wrote:
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 09:53:54AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
DFSG stand for Debian Free Software Guidelines.
Yes, and since Debian is 100% Free Software, that applies to everything
in Debian.
Documentation isn't software. Neither are
Joey Hess wrote:
Protecting the freedom of this form of speech requires a somewhat
different strategy from the one used to protect the freedom to copy
source code.
Freedom of software and freedom of speech are two entirely
different animals, and attempting to confuse them as you do
[...]
Anthony == Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
Anthony How about correcting a supposedly historical document, for
Anthony example, taking a document that describes Windows as the
Anthony progenitor of the trend for GUIs, and adding some
Anthony explanation about Apple and Xerox and
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 02:03:11PM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote:
The history section in my book, which is declared invarient in the
license, was written by Ian M. and has no technical bearing on the rest of
the book's content, but has every reason to be protected from
modification. These
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 02:03:11PM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote:
On Mon, 8 Apr 2002, Joseph Carter wrote:
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 09:53:54AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
DFSG stand for Debian Free Software Guidelines.
Yes, and since Debian is 100% Free Software, that applies to
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 02:03:11PM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote:
The history section in my book, which is declared invarient in the
license, was written by Ian M. and has no technical bearing on the rest of
the book's content, but has every reason to be protected from
modification. These
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 02:51:27PM -0400, Thomas Hood wrote:
Richard Braakman wrote:
What you're advocating is the evil twin of censorship,
namely forced speech.
I don't think that placing restrictions on an otherwise
completely liberal license amounts to using any kind of
force, but
On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 01:04:15AM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
Using my book as an example, there have been many patches submitted either
for spelling or content. I have included all those that were correct ;-)
I have never seen the book published with changes that were not made by
me,
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 05:17:48PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
As a small example, consider that someone might wish to condense part of
your book into a reference card that can be mounted on a mousepad.
Unfortunately, the license will requires that Ian M's history of Debian
be reproduced
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 05:26:11PM -0500, David Starner wrote:
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 05:17:48PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
As a small example, consider that someone might wish to condense part of
your book into a reference card that can be mounted on a mousepad.
Unfortunately, the
Em Tue, 9 Apr 2002 14:26:39 +0300, Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
escreveu:
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 10:02:47PM -0400, Thomas Hood wrote:
While I don't regard the DFSG as already applying to
documentation, the spirit of it is naturally extended to cover
documentation. I would suggest
begin Gustavo Noronha Silva quotation:
Em Tue, 9 Apr 2002 14:26:39 +0300, Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
escreveu:
If the GFDL were a free to use and modify license, then we would not
be having this discussion. The problem is that the GFDL specifies
parts that we are _not_ free
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 08:22:07PM -0300, Gustavo Noronha Silva wrote:
indeed, I would not like to see people modifying my points of view and
redistributing saying that's what I think, you see
So if I rewrite charsets (7) (which I'm considering), I should make sure
that it's under an invariant
On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 22:49, Joseph Carter wrote:
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 10:20:28PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
So, we change either the status quo, or the DFSG, or issue
clarifications on why the status quo (with GFDL-licensed components)
doesn't violate the DFSG.
Where clarification
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 10:08:53PM -0500, David Starner wrote:
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 10:26:48PM -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
So the FDL is a free license because it's inconvenient for it to be not?
No, they're saying that a vast majority of programs which are widely
considered free by
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 10:20:28PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
Also consider that pulling gcc from main would fracture the project; it
would become literally impossible to build a completely free OS, given
that the whole ball of wax would depend on a non-free compiler.
Why do we need to pull
How about: /usr/bin/latex is a program - my_neat_little_phdthesis.tex is
a file?
Actually, /usr/bin/latex is an interpreter.
my_neat_little_phdthesis.tex *is* program code, even though the vast
proportion of the content will be literal text for output. See Andrew
Greene's BASiX (BASIC
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 10:54:40PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
I don't know. Call me an optimist, but I seem to be hearing a rough
consensus.
Where? Branden seems to believe that anything that Debian packages is
software, for the purposes of the DFSG. A number of people would argue
that small,
On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 23:54, David Starner wrote:
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 10:20:28PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
Also consider that pulling gcc from main would fracture the project; it
would become literally impossible to build a completely free OS, given
that the whole ball of wax would
On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 00:05, David Starner wrote:
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 10:54:40PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
I don't know. Call me an optimist, but I seem to be hearing a rough
consensus.
Where? Branden seems to believe that anything that Debian packages is
software, for the purposes
Le Lundi 8 Avril 2002 05:08, David Starner a écrit :
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 10:26:48PM -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
So the FDL is a free license because it's inconvenient for it to be
not?
No, they're saying that a vast majority of programs which are widely
considered free by our
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 07:27:40AM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
DFSG stand for Debian Free Software Guidelines.
Yes, and since Debian is 100% Free Software, that applies to everything
in Debian.
In any case, I don't see why an invariant rant about the evils of
Microsoft-extended Kerbeous (for
This one time, at band camp, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
DFSG stand for Debian Free Software Guidelines. IMHO we ave to create a
DFDG, Debian Free Documentation Guidelines.
I wrote this up last night after getting fed up with this thread, then
modified it this morning after reading the thread on
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 10:08:53PM -0500, David Starner wrote:
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 10:26:48PM -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
So the FDL is a free license because it's inconvenient for it to
be not?
No, they're saying that a vast majority of programs which are widely
considered free
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 04:01:55PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
you're not allowed to change the license or the author's name of a
GPL-licensed program so, by your strictly literal reading of the DFSG
that makes the GPL non-free.
True. But by long tradition and, as you say, common sense, that's
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 07:27:40AM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
DFSG stand for Debian Free Software Guidelines. IMHO we ave to create a
DFDG, Debian Free Documentation Guidelines.
Why? What freedoms are important for software that aren't for documentation?
If the GFDL fails the DFSG, I'd say
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 12:05:45AM -0500, David Starner wrote:
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 10:54:40PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
I don't know. Call me an optimist, but I seem to be hearing a rough
consensus.
[...] And you, and another group of people, see to think that Debian
should
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 10:20:28PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
Given that gcc, binutils, and KDE are in main, it would seem that the
status quo and the DFSG are in conflict, or the status quo and someone's
interpretation of the DFSG are in conflict at least.
As far as I can see neither the gcc
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 12:08:05AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
The point is that pulling everything out that's GFDL isn't really a good
option; it damages the project for zero gain. This is especially true
in the long term, as projects follow the FSF's lead and start releasing
GFDL docs.
On
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 11:05:31AM +0200, Sebastian Rittau wrote:
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 10:20:28PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
Given that gcc, binutils, and KDE are in main, it would seem that the
status quo and the DFSG are in conflict, or the status quo and someone's
interpretation of
On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 00:43, David Starner wrote:
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 07:27:40AM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
DFSG stand for Debian Free Software Guidelines.
Yes, and since Debian is 100% Free Software, that applies to everything
in Debian.
Documentation isn't software. Neither are
On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 01:42, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 07:27:40AM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
DFSG stand for Debian Free Software Guidelines. IMHO we ave to create a
DFDG, Debian Free Documentation Guidelines.
Why? What freedoms are important for software that aren't
On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 09:01, Richard Braakman wrote:
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 12:08:05AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
The point is that pulling everything out that's GFDL isn't really a good
option; it damages the project for zero gain. This is especially true
in the long term, as projects
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 09:53:54AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
Documentation isn't software. Neither are conffiles, icons, etc.
When I buy software, all of that is part of what I buy. Foldoc says
that one definition of software is programs plus documentation though
this does not correspond
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 10:01:15AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
Revisionist history, for one. I'm sure the FSF wouldn't appreciate the
GCC document being modified to make it look like Linus Torvalds wrote
GCC, for example.
How does the GFDL stop that? I can add a section to the GCC
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 10:30:18AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
On the other hand, by taking action we might be able to stop those projects
from taking such a misguided course of action. I think the FSF is making
a big mistake with the GFDL.
I'm curious about your reasoning. Have you
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 12:22:00AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 00:05, David Starner wrote:
Where? Branden seems to believe that anything that Debian packages is
software, for the purposes of the DFSG.
[...]
In that thread in debian-legal, he seemed to accept the
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 08:50:43PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
I think that the point being made is that, if the GNU FDL is not a free
license, then we will need to redefine free or watch our project
splinter into uselessness.
The GNU FDL is a license, period. It can applied in a manner
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 03:57:42PM +1000, Jamie Wilkinson wrote:
This one time, at band camp, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
DFSG stand for Debian Free Software Guidelines. IMHO we ave to create a
DFDG, Debian Free Documentation Guidelines.
I wrote this up last night after getting fed up with this
On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 11:51, David Starner wrote:
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 09:53:54AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
Documentation isn't software. Neither are conffiles, icons, etc.
When I buy software, all of that is part of what I buy. Foldoc says
that one definition of software is programs
On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 12:25, Branden Robinson wrote:
Jeff, you might want to read:
Noted.
People who want to opine about licensing issues really, really should
subscribe to -legal.
And I have (though only recently).
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of
On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 12:32, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 12:22:00AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
In that thread in debian-legal, he seemed to accept the possibility that
some things packaged for Debian might not be software. His problem
seemed to be with corner cases, and
I asked:
Were there any other important debates about the GFDL
that should be read?
To answer my own question:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200112/msg7.html
Off to read about 100 messages ...
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 10:01:15AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
Why? What freedoms are important for software that aren't for
documentation?
Revisionist history, for one. I'm sure the FSF wouldn't appreciate the
GCC document being modified to make it look like Linus Torvalds wrote
GCC,
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 05:28:19PM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 02:04:12PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
The GNU FDL violates the DFSG ?
In case this is true, nearly all KDE packages have to be moved to
non-free as they use the GNU FDL for the documentation
using packages from main.
The FDL is not DFSG-compliant, but that doesn't make it non-free.
By the definitions we have given non-free, it is exactly that.
If it was software, it was non-free. Our definitions are only about
software. The GNU FDL is about documentation, which is a totally
As far as I can see neither the gcc nor the binutils documentation has
invariant sections. I don't know about KDE.
Gcc 3 docs do: gcc-3.0/gcc/doc/gcc.texi has (1) the GPL itself [which
we already need some way of dealing with, the text of the GPL isn't
DFSG but we include it...] (2) the three
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 10:30:18AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 09:01, Richard Braakman wrote:
On the other hand, by taking action we might be able to stop those projects
from taking such a misguided course of action. I think the FSF is making
a big mistake with the
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 11:24:44PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
The FDL is not DFSG-compliant, but that doesn't make it non-free.
By the definitions we have given non-free, it is exactly that.
If it was software, it was non-free. Our definitions are only about
software. The GNU FDL
This one time, at band camp, Jamie Wilkinson wrote:
I wrote this up last night after getting fed up with this thread, then
modified it this morning after reading the thread on -legal that was
referred to. Flame away.
http://people.debian.org/~jaq/jfdl.html
Of course, I meant
This one time, at band camp, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 03:57:42PM +1000, Jamie Wilkinson wrote:
http://people.debian.org/~jaq/jfdg.html
Well written. Thanks.
One issue though:
The license may not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.
--^^^
Shouldn't it say
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 09:53:54AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
DFSG stand for Debian Free Software Guidelines.
Yes, and since Debian is 100% Free Software, that applies to everything
in Debian.
Documentation isn't software. Neither are conffiles, icons, etc. So,
if we're to be true
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 03:09:11PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
Documentation isn't software. Neither are conffiles, icons, etc.
When I buy software, all of that is part of what I buy. Foldoc says
that one definition of software is programs plus documentation though
this does not
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 04:17:28PM -0400, Thomas Hood wrote:
I asked:
Were there any other important debates about the GFDL
that should be read?
To answer my own question:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200112/msg7.html
Off to read about 100 messages ...
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200112/msg7.html
Off to read about 100 messages ...
... and a tedious experience it was.
I would like to make the following points which I didn't
see mentioned in the hundreds of messages (many of them
snipes and flames).
1.
.
The first is the GNU FDL, which blatantly violates sections 5 and 6
of the DFSG. The second license allows only for verbatim
distribution, changes are not allowed. This violates section 3.
Please move this package to non-free.
The GNU FDL violates the DFSG ?
In case this is true, nearly
under two seperate licenses, neither
one of which meets the DFSG.
The first is the GNU FDL, which blatantly violates sections 5 and 6
of the DFSG. The second license allows only for verbatim
distribution, changes are not allowed. This violates section 3.
Please move
get
drawn? Is it possible to draw one?
It's possible to draw a line. The GNU FDL clearly describes what a
Transparant copy is for example.
IMO, an FDL-licensed document with invariant sections is non-free. As a
user of Debian, I'd like to know that they're not installed on my system
if I'm
one of which meets the DFSG.
The first is the GNU FDL, which blatantly violates sections 5 and 6
of the DFSG. The second license allows only for verbatim
distribution, changes are not allowed. This violates section 3.
Please move this package to non-free.
The GNU FDL violates
The GNU standards are licensed under two seperate licenses, neither
one of which meets the DFSG.
The first is the GNU FDL, which blatantly violates sections 5 and 6
of the DFSG. The second license allows only for verbatim
distribution, changes are not allowed. This violates section
(and probably is in a lot of places, in or
outside of Debian), and XSLT is Turing-complete. Where does the line get
drawn? Is it possible to draw one?
It's possible to draw a line. The GNU FDL clearly describes what a
Transparant copy is for example.
Whether or not it describes what a transparent
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 11:14:08PM +0200, Federico Di Gregorio wrote:
Il dom, 2002-04-07 alle 21:34, Martin Schulze ha scritto:
Aurelien Jarno wrote:
The GNU FDL violates the DFSG ?
I thought that it hasn't been finally resolved if the GNU FDL meets
the DFSG or not. However
1 - 100 of 116 matches
Mail list logo
