I have attempted to locate discussion on this issue before in
debian-legal (as well as debian-devel, incidentally). If this particular
issue has been addressed somewhere, please be gentle and direct me to
it. If not:
I have noted that packages such as LAME will not be packaged in Debian
John Goerzen wrote:
Before I reply, I should add I still see it as wrong and misleading to apply
*software* guidelines to *documentation*, which to me are fundamentally
different beasts. Thus, I see the question as rather misleading.
I completely agree.
However, with the question narrowly
reopen 181493 !
thanks
For the debian-legal people, this is the controversy at hand:
Sun RPC code is included as part of glibc. The license, which is
included below, prohibits distribution of the original code under its
original terms, which would make the license non-free. Including
non-free
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 10:55:12PM -0700, Paul C. Bryan wrote:
My question is: what are the guidelines on packaging code that has
patented technology? Does GIMP's GIF support get distributed because
Unisys is not actively enforcing its LZW patent, while LAME does not get
distributed because
On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 06:39:47AM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
Sun RPC is a product of Sun Microsystems, Inc. and is
provided for unrestricted use provided that this legend is
included on all tape media and as a part of the software
Le jeu 21/08/2003 à 17:07, John Goerzen a écrit :
Before I reply, I should add I still see it as wrong and misleading to apply
*software* guidelines to *documentation*, which to me are fundamentally
different beasts. Thus, I see the question as rather misleading.
Could you please explain
Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
Joerg Wendland [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Matthew Garrett, on 2003-08-21, 16:13, you wrote:
Oh, now, come on. The GFDL plainly /isn't/ compatible with the DFSG.
Whether or not it /has/ to be compatible with the DFSG in order to be in
Debian is an entirely separate
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.
[ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published
by the Free Software Foundation, is not a license
Please reply to this message, to this mailing list, answering the
questions below. If you are a Debian Developer as of the date on
this message, please GPG-sign your reply.
GPG key not at hand, sorry.
=== CUT HERE ===
Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2
On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 07:04:14 + Brian M. Carlson wrote:
My question is: what are the guidelines on packaging code that has
patented technology? Does GIMP's GIF support get distributed because
Unisys is not actively enforcing its LZW patent, while LAME does not
get distributed because
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 06:39:47AM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
Sun RPC is a product of Sun Microsystems, Inc. and is
provided for unrestricted use provided that this legend is
included on all tape media and as a part
Brian T. Sniffen, on 2003-08-21, 19:15, you wrote:
Wouldn't it be better, then, to say that you don't think the GFDL
meets the DFSG, but that you think it shouldn't have to? Certainly,
you don't appear to believe that the GFDL both should have to meet the
DFSG and does so.
The DFSG does
Let's see if this goes correctly this time...
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003, Branden Robinson wrote:
=== 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
On 2003-08-22 12:28:29 +0100 Joerg Wendland [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
[...] When I am writing a report with a
conclusion that contains my very personal opinion, I as the author do
not want anybody to change that section
Let's say when I am writing a program with an output that contains my
Joerg Wendland wrote:
The point is, I think that there are circumstances where having
invariant sections are _necessary_. When I am writing a report with a
conclusion that contains my very personal opinion, I as the author do
not want anybody to change that section, write anything into it that I
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
On Wed, 06 Aug 2003, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
So, if you find a definition which makes no difference between
software and documentation, please send it on this list.
There is a difference, even if someone doesn't want to see it.
There
MJ Ray, on 2003-08-22, 13:10, you wrote:
that section. Does that mean my program is free software too, in your
opinion? After all, all your arguments seem to hold for it equally
well and programs and documentation-on-disk are just different types
of software.
software != documentation,
Matthew Garrett, on 2003-08-22, 13:09, you wrote:
As previously pointed out, the same is true of software. I could insert
anti-semetic messages into pam-pgsql and NMU it now. Perhaps you should
change your license?
No, you didn't get it. What I wrote before was example for why invariant.
On 2003-08-22 13:34:30 +0100 Joerg Wendland [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
software != documentation, you cannot compare it like you do.
Documentation in the formats debian can distribute is a subset of
software. Software != programs, remember (see emails about
dictionaries, origins of DFSG and
MJ Ray, on 2003-08-22, 13:53, you wrote:
I cannot tell what that refers to, sorry. My example was why your
argument holds for programs too. Doesn't mean I agree with it.
Sorry for my english, that should have referred to example, read
the example was nothing else than an example
So,
=== 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
Joerg Wendland said:
The point is, I think that there are circumstances where having
invariant sections are _necessary_. When I am writing a report with a
conclusion that contains my very personal opinion, I as the author do
not want anybody to change that section, write anything into it that
Joe Moore, on 2003-08-22, 07:50, you wrote:
You said:
I think the sky is green, and pigs can fly.
See? You should have licensed your email message so that no one could
modify your comments to put words in your mouth.
I do see, yes. But that's why I sign each message ;-)
Joerg
--
Joerg
On 22 Aug 2003 12:04:55 GMT, Andreas Metzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Actually we don't necessarily need that much, separating 100%
documenation and everything else should be good enough, and we
can apply DFSG to the latter category (including 100% software and
partially software).
I
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 12:09:54AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
=== 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,
Joerg Wendland wrote:
Matthew Garrett, on 2003-08-22, 13:09, you wrote:
As previously pointed out, the same is true of software. I could insert
anti-semetic messages into pam-pgsql and NMU it now. Perhaps you should
change your license?
No, you didn't get it. What I wrote before was example
Joerg Wendland wrote:
Matthew Garrett, on 2003-08-22, 13:09, you wrote:
If Emacs had an invarient section discussing fishing and how this had
inspired the authoring of the manual, it would be awkward for me to
use chunks in my document on an application for recording fishing
statistics. And if
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 03:29:22PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 10:07:20AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
Before I reply, I should add I still see it as wrong and misleading to apply
*software* guidelines to *documentation*, which to me are fundamentally
different
One of the main sticking points with the GFDL is the use of invariant
sections, which may not be removed or altered (save for some very
inconsequential exceptions.) One thing about the invariant sections is that
the GFDL specifically states that they contain nothing that could fall
directly
On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 08:51:06AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On 22 Aug 2003 12:04:55 GMT, Andreas Metzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Actually we don't necessarily need that much, separating 100%
documenation and everything else should be good enough, and we
can apply DFSG to the latter
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
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
On Tue, Aug 19, 2003 at 10:13:18PM -0400, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
The last sentence just means that Install Debian GNU/Hurd, with the
RIPE Whois Server! shouldn't show up on our posters. It's verging on
non-free, violating DFSG 9, but this minor effect has been tolerated
for authors paranoid
On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 07:50:32AM -0400, Joe Moore wrote:
You said:
I think the sky is green, and pigs can fly.
See? You should have licensed your email message so that no one could
modify your comments to put words in your mouth.
I believe that qualifies as libel. At least under UK law,
On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 03:06:56PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
[0] german saying translated, does this exist in english?
It's apples and oranges in English, but yes.
Not the same thing. That one expands to Do not complain that your
apple makes a poor orange, or some variation on the theme.
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What I am saying is that we need to have a two-part California-style
ballot here:
1. Do you believe that DFSG should apply to documentation?
2. If DFSG should apply to documentation, what should be the disposition of
GFDL according to DFSG? (This is
I have said this several times before, and I'll try just once more,
because it is clearly not getting through to you.
On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 01:28:29PM +0200, Joerg Wendland wrote:
The point is, I think that there are circumstances where having
invariant sections are _necessary_.
Yes, there
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 00:09:54 -0500
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 09:51:39 -0500
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2. If DFSG should apply to documentation, what should be the disposition of
GFDL according to DFSG? (This is the question you asked.)
I don't think that the answer to question two can be relevant unless we have
On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 10:14:31 -0500
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I suggest that even if the GFDL did not allow modification of the invariant
sections, if it at least allowed removal of them, we would be in much better
shape. It would, for instance, allow people to better take the
On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 10:14:31AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
One of the main sticking points with the GFDL is the use of invariant
sections, which may not be removed or altered (save for some very
inconsequential exceptions.) One thing about the invariant sections is that
the GFDL
On Fri, 22 Aug 2003, John Goerzen wrote:
One of the main sticking points with the GFDL is the use of invariant
sections
But not the only sticking point, I'm afraid.
I suggest that even if the GFDL did not allow modification of the invariant
sections, if it at least allowed removal of them,
On 2003-08-22 15:48:05 +0100 Andreas Metzler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was merely pointing out the fact that instead of splitting in
documentation | greyzone | software
the separation in
documentation | rest
is easier (just two classes) and might be good enough.
That's not really relevant,
On 2003-08-22 16:14:31 +0100 John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
[delete invariants]
What do people here think about that, and is there any indication if
the FSF
would be amenable to this change?
I haven't seen anything to make me think that they would be, but ICBW.
It seems to strike at
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 12:09:54AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
=== 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,
On 2003-08-22 15:51:39 +0100 John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
What I am saying is that we need to have a two-part California-style
ballot here:
So, run that survey, or find someone else to run that survey, but
don't carp at Branden for trying to gather data that interests him.
I
Paul C. Bryan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My question is: what are the guidelines on packaging code that has
patented technology? Does GIMP's GIF support
JPEG is the better example. It's about in the same league as MP3, in
terms of enforcement, IMHO.
Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2
[ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published
by the Free Software Foundation, is not a license compatible
with the Debian Free Software
That's an interesting compromise you propose, and it would solve the
problems which affect only some GFDL documents. but I don't think it
addresses the problems which affect all GFDL documents: the
requirements for transparent formats, and the anti-DMCA clause (the
ban on technical access control
Keith Dunwoody [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
Joerg Wendland [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Matthew Garrett, on 2003-08-21, 16:13, you wrote:
Oh, now, come on. The GFDL plainly /isn't/ compatible with the DFSG.
Whether or not it /has/ to be compatible with the DFSG in order to
Joerg Wendland [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Matthew Garrett, on 2003-08-22, 13:09, you wrote:
As previously pointed out, the same is true of software. I could insert
anti-semetic messages into pam-pgsql and NMU it now. Perhaps you should
change your license?
No, you didn't get it. What I wrote
On Fri, 22 Aug 2003, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
Copyright (C) 1984, Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Users may copy or modify Sun RPC without charge, but are
not authorized to license or distribute it to anyone else
except as part of a product or program
On Fri, 22 Aug 2003, Keith Dunwoody wrote:
KDWell, consider the following: Invariant sections are only
KDallowed to be material which does not talk about the main topic
KDof the work. However, encyclopedias are books which
KD(theoretically anyway) are about _everything_. All topics are
KDthe
On Fri, 2003-08-22 at 12:28, Joerg Wendland wrote:
The point is, I think that there are circumstances where having
invariant sections are _necessary_. When I am writing a report with a
conclusion that contains my very personal opinion, I as the author do
not want anybody to change that
Scripsit MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I suspect not many people want DFSG-free Debian bits, so aren't
interested in that survey, so you will need to run it. It would be
very interesting to *finally* read consistent rationale in a we want
DFSG-free Debian bits statement. Assuming that's
On Thu, 2003-08-21 at 06:09, Branden Robinson wrote:
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
On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 01:41:55PM -0400, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
That's an interesting compromise you propose, and it would solve the
problems which affect only some GFDL documents. but I don't think it
I'm well aware of that.
addresses the problems which affect all GFDL documents: the
On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 02:05:57PM -0400, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
Has anybody asked Sun for a clarification of the license, or tried to
obtain the code under a different license? Or maybe the FSF has
obtained a suitable license and just forgot to update the copyright
notice?
Sun has
On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 02:05:57PM -0400, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
Sun has repeatedly clarified elsewhere that the intent of this is
essentially MIT/X11, except you may not distribute this product
alone.
That cuts out everything but the GPL/LGPL incompatibility problem,
which remains a sticking
On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 02:11:07PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 01:41:55PM -0400, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
addresses the problems which affect all GFDL documents: the
requirements for transparent formats, and the anti-DMCA clause (the
ban on technical access control
On Sat, Aug 23, 2003 at 03:30:28AM +0900, Fedor Zuev wrote:
On Fri, 22 Aug 2003, Joe Moore wrote:
JM The point is, I think that there are circumstances where having
JM invariant sections are _necessary_. When I am writing a report with a
JM conclusion that contains my very personal opinion, I
On Fri, 22 Aug 2003, Matthew Garrett wrote:
No, you didn't get it. What I wrote before was example for why invariant.
sections _can_ be useful. Do not compare apples and pears[0]. On the
other hand is your anti-semetic message subject to penal law not
copyright law, at least here in Germany...
On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 02:11:07PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
1. I'm a Free Software user. I am using Emacs, a large Free system that
requires documentation to learn by any means. But that documentation is
missing or obsolete because of GFDL. I cannot make use of this Free
package.
This is
On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 12:06:26PM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Unless I've missed something, so far there hasn't been anyone arguing
that the DFSG should not apply to documentation. What there has been
I would hold that position. But I caution people reading this to not assume
that this
On 2003-08-22 19:21:22 +0100 Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
DFSG-free Debian bits
Yes, reading it back a few hours later, I see that was a particularly
clumsy phrase. By DFSG-free there, I meant free of DFSG not the
other, more common sense free according to DFSG. Please edit
On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 14:11:07 -0500
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
addresses the problems which affect all GFDL documents: the
requirements for transparent formats, and the anti-DMCA clause (the
ban on technical access control measures). It also doesn't
That doesn't seem to me to
David B Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Less likely, though I certainly wouldn't say it's impossible, is a judge
ruling that without providing electricity, a working computer with a CD
reader, and a technician to operate it and read the words aloud,
distributing the documentation on a
On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 01:27:53PM -0600, Jamin W. Collins wrote:
addresses the problems which affect all GFDL documents: the
requirements for transparent formats, and the anti-DMCA clause (the
ban on technical access control measures). It also doesn't
That doesn't seem to me to be
On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 16:25:27 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) wrote:
David B Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Less likely, though I certainly wouldn't say it's impossible, is a judge
ruling that without providing electricity, a working computer with a CD
reader, and a technician
On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 09:51:39AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
What I am saying is that we need to have a two-part California-style
ballot here:
1. Do you believe that DFSG should apply to documentation?
That's not a question that the readers of debian-legal can answer for
the entire Project.
On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 06:39:47AM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
Copyright (C) 1984, Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Sun RPC is a product of Sun Microsystems, Inc. and is
provided for unrestricted use provided that this legend is
included on all tape media
On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 10:14:31AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
One of the main sticking points with the GFDL is the use of invariant
sections, which may not be removed or altered (save for some very
inconsequential exceptions.)
[...]
What do people here think about that, and is there any
While these issues are valid and some are quite problematic, they are
not differences between documentation and software. All these things
apply equally to software, and would give us just as much trouble if
they ever arose for documentation. While the issues themselves are not
the subject here, I
On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 10:14:31AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
I suggest that even if the GFDL did not allow modification of the invariant
sections, if it at least allowed removal of them, we would be in much better
shape. It would, for instance, allow people to better take the manual from
Scripsit John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 12:06:26PM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Unless I've missed something, so far there hasn't been anyone arguing
that the DFSG should not apply to documentation.
I would hold that position. But I caution people reading this to
Scripsit John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 01:41:55PM -0400, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
addresses the problems which affect all GFDL documents: the
requirements for transparent formats, and the anti-DMCA clause (the
ban on technical access control measures). It also
Scripsit Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED]
KD So, no text from a document licensed under the
KD GFDL which contained an invariant section could be included in an
KD encyclopedia, since the invariant section would now be part of
KD the main discussion.
Main topic of encyclopedia (the whole
Scripsit Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Copyright (C) 1984, Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Users may copy or modify Sun RPC without charge, but are
not authorized to license or distribute it to anyone else
except as part of a product or program developed by
Brian T. Sniffen, on 2003-08-22, 13:54, you wrote:
[...]
Whew, I though this was a list for serious discussion, but some participants
obviously have to reach a certain age first... *plonk*
Joerg
--
Joerg joergland Wendland
GPG: 51CF8417 FP: 79C0 7671 AFC7 315E 657A F318 57A3 7FBD 51CF 8417
Symantec AntiVirus found a virus in an attachment you
(debian-legal@lists.debian.org debian-legal@lists.debian.org) sent to Jane
Morgan.
To ensure the recipient(s) are able to use the files you sent, perform a virus
scan on your computer, clean any infected files, then resend this attachment.
On Fri, 2003-08-22 at 15:40, John Goerzen wrote:
On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 01:27:53PM -0600, Jamin W. Collins wrote:
addresses the problems which affect all GFDL documents: the
requirements for transparent formats, and the anti-DMCA clause (the
ban on technical access control measures).
On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 01:28:29PM +0200, Joerg Wendland wrote:
The point is, I think that there are circumstances where having
invariant sections are _necessary_. When I am writing a report with a
conclusion that contains my very personal opinion, I as the author do
not want anybody to change
On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 01:28:29PM +0200, Joerg Wendland wrote:
The point is, I think that there are circumstances where having
invariant sections are _necessary_. When I am writing a report with a
conclusion that contains my very personal opinion, I as the author do
not want anybody to change
On Sat, 23 Aug 2003, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Copyright (C) 1984, Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Users may copy or modify Sun RPC without charge, but are
not authorized to license or distribute it to anyone else
except as
On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 14:36:03 -0500, John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 12:06:26PM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Unless I've missed something, so far there hasn't been anyone
arguing that the DFSG should not apply to documentation. What
there has been
I would hold
On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 08:47:17PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2003-08-22 19:21:22 +0100 Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
DFSG-free Debian bits
Yes, reading it back a few hours later, I see that was a particularly
clumsy phrase. By DFSG-free there, I meant free of DFSG not the
David B Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 16:25:27 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) wrote:
David B Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Less likely, though I certainly wouldn't say it's impossible, is a judge
ruling that without providing electricity, a working
86 matches
Mail list logo
