On Wed, Sep 17, 2003 at 03:44:41PM -0500, D. Starner wrote:
I also have no idea what direction to render the text (left-to-right or
right-to-left). The standard tells me.
There are DFSG-free data files that include all the normative information
like this. Run locate UnicodeData -- I
On Thu, Sep 18, 2003 at 12:33:46AM -0500, D. Starner wrote:
***
Disclaimer
The Unicode Character Database is provided as is by Unicode, Inc.
No claims are made as to fitness for any particular purpose. No
warranties of any kind are expressed or implied. The recipient
Eben Moglen has told RMS that it's ok for us to do the Unicode trick:
to alter it into some other form, and then that new form is entirely
unrestricted by the license. And then, if we like, convert back to
the original form too, which remains unrestricted.
Thomas
On 2003-09-18 01:30:06 +0100 Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Life of a program short, and this subject is not of great
importance for them. But literary works usually lives much longer.
Fedor seems not to have noticed: programs are literary works.
On 2003-09-18 01:43:22 +0100 Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am sorry. As I already said, I just can't explain the
subject more comprehensible than I already did. So, if you still
can't learn the difference between free as speech and free as
beer, I have not any cure to help you.
On 2003-09-17 20:34:13 +0100 Brian W. Carver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's good to hear. Of course another related concern is
forward-looking. It
is a terrible waste of scare resources to have Debian create a
DFSG-free
manual every time a GFDL-licensed manual is produced for some new
piece
So I think there really is no difference.
I meant that the GFDL requires you to have the license content itself as
part of the document, whereas it can be a seaprate file for the GPL.
Part of the document can be a separate file,
because a document can be more than one file.
This
The GNU Project's motive for using invariant sections is not the issue
here; that's a GNU Project decision, not a Debian decision.
You are arguing that you should have a voice in what Debian does.
I have said nothing of the kind. The Debian developers decide what
Debian does, and
You have mistaken the objection. There is no reason to think it would
be a small fractional increase, especially since little parts of
manuals--single paragraphs even--are useful reusable bits just in the
way that single functions of Lisp are.
TeX allows us to make any changes we like provided we distribute the
changed source as a patch file, and provided we change the name if the
result doesn't pass the Trip test.
Yes, but my point is that the original TeX source code must be
included in the source distribution, and you
The argument for that is that there are many
such manuals and they would be useful to include, and the DFSG can
be interpreted to accept it.
The arguments appear to be:
1) There are many GFDL manuals.
2) The many GFDL manuals would be useful to include.
That's two
Recently you said you'd contact a lawyer with respect to section 2 of
the GFDL. If you've had the chance, would you mind sharing the lawyer's
conclusion with debian-legal?
We decided to clarify the text there but it will take some time
to actually do so.
Well, since Debian will contain only 100% Free Software, and I think most
of us
(and you, if I interpret your previous emails correctly) agree that GFDL
manuals are not Free Software, it would seem to be a natural conclusion
that
Debian will not contain them.
Manuals are not
As has been previously pointed out, fair use is far from a universal
concept. Within the United Kingdom, it doesn't exist, and copying a
single paragraph from a GFDLed work would require me to fulfil the
license conditions.
I am pretty sure something along the same lines as fair
I couldn't believe that RMS actually wrote that when I read it.
You shouldn't have believed I actually wrote that, because he
misunderstood what I wrote. He omitted a crucial part of the
argument, so that what remained was absurd; then he went on at length
pointing out just how absurd it
Richard Stallman wrote:
Well, since Debian will contain only 100% Free Software, and I think most of us
(and you, if I interpret your previous emails correctly) agree that GFDL
manuals are not Free Software, it would seem to be a natural conclusion that
Debian will not contain
On 2003-09-18 12:05:55 +0100 Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Manuals are not free software, because they are not software.
They may be software. No-one claims that manuals == software and I
am tired of FDL proponents arguing against that point that nobody
made.
The DFSG very
On Thursday 18 September 2003 13:05, Richard Stallman wrote:
Well, since Debian will contain only 100% Free Software, and I think
most of us (and you, if I interpret your previous emails correctly) agree
that GFDL manuals are not Free Software, it would seem to be a natural
conclusion that
On Thursday 18 September 2003 13:05, Richard Stallman wrote:
I am not interested in beating a dead horse.
You have been for at least a whole week. Please stop that.
Thanks.
Mike
The arguments appear to be:
1) There are many GFDL manuals.
2) The many GFDL manuals would be useful to include.
That's two parts out of the three I mentioned, and the third part is
crucial.
But they are an irrelevant two parts. If Joe Blow writes a license
for his program or
Fedor Zuev wrote:
On Sat, 13 Sep 2003, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2003-09-12 21:41:52 +0100 Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Really, I do not believe that you did not read FSD. All the
more so you menyioned it below.
Please, why do you even write this? I can only think that you are
On 2003-09-18, Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Eben Moglen has told RMS that it's ok for us to do the Unicode trick:
to alter it into some other form, and then that new form is entirely
unrestricted by the license. And then, if we like, convert back to
the original form too,
On 2003-09-17, Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The question is: will requiring those markings make the license
non-free?
I think it's more likely to be considered free if you require
functionality rather than specific wording. Compare this clause from
the GPL:
c) If the modified
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
TeX allows us to make any changes we like provided we distribute the
changed source as a patch file, and provided we change the name if the
result doesn't pass the Trip test.
Yes, but my point is that the original TeX source code must be
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The argument for that is that there are many
such manuals and they would be useful to include, and the DFSG can
be interpreted to accept it.
The arguments appear to be:
1) There are many GFDL manuals.
2) The many GFDL
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
F On 2003-09-18 01:43:22 +0100 Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am sorry. As I already said, I just can't explain the
subject more comprehensible than I already did. So, if you still
can't learn the difference between free as speech and free as
beer,
On Thursday, Sep 18, 2003, at 07:05 US/Eastern, Richard Stallman wrote:
Manuals are not free software, because they are not software.
The DFSG very clearly treats software and programs as
synonymous.
And we very clearly treat everything in Debian as software (see the
first clause of the
On Wednesday, Sep 17, 2003, at 16:44 US/Eastern, D. Starner wrote:
Or you could go to http://www.unicode.org and find the entire text
of the standard in PDF files.
Still leaves us the problem with the PDF spec, unless that is
downloadable too. Or PostScript.
Or almost any standard from
On Thursday, Sep 18, 2003, at 01:33 US/Eastern, D. Starner wrote:
We can make copies _in any form_ _whether for profit or not_. Where's
the problem?
Right to modify, for one thing.
On Tuesday, Sep 16, 2003, at 16:19 US/Eastern, Henning Makholm wrote:
7. Compliance with Laws; Non-Infringement. Recipient shall comply with
all
applicable laws and regulations in connection with use and
distribution of
the Subject Software, including but not limited to, all export and
On Thu, 18 Sep 2003, Richard Stallman wrote:
Recently you said you'd contact a lawyer with respect to section
2 of the GFDL. If you've had the chance, would you mind sharing
the lawyer's conclusion with debian-legal?
We decided to clarify the text there but it will take some time
On Thursday, Sep 18, 2003, at 11:24 US/Eastern, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
Also, the requirement to distribute a transparent form appears to
violate DFSG 2, since it does not permit distribution in source code
as well as compiled form.
Brian, I'm not sure how that follows. Could you elaborate?
Scripsit Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
8. Claims of Infringement. If Recipient at any time has knowledge of
any one or more third party claims that reproduction,
modification, use, distribution, import or sale of Subject
Software (including particular functionality or code
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thursday, Sep 18, 2003, at 11:24 US/Eastern, Brian T. Sniffen
wrote:
Also, the requirement to distribute a transparent form appears to
violate DFSG 2, since it does not permit distribution in source
code as well as compiled form.
Brian, I'm
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) writes:
The GFDL allows you to make any changes you like in the technical
substance of the manual, just as the TeX license allows you to make
any changes you like in the technical substance of TeX.
This is not true. There is no way for me to create a
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday, Sep 18, 2003, at 11:24 US/Eastern, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
Also, the requirement to distribute a transparent form appears to
violate DFSG 2, since it does not permit distribution in source code
as well as compiled form.
Brian,
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And we very clearly treat everything in Debian as software (see the
first clause of the Social Contract).
Not quite. Texts of licenses and logos typically fail DFSG tests.
Lots of graphics (and probably some audio material, too) come in a
form that
On Thu, 2003-09-18 at 15:04, Florian Weimer wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) writes:
The GFDL allows you to make any changes you like in the technical
substance of the manual, just as the TeX license allows you to make
any changes you like in the technical substance of TeX.
On Thu, 18 Sep 2003, Florian Weimer wrote:
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And we very clearly treat everything in Debian as software (see the
first clause of the Social Contract).
Not quite. Texts of licenses and logos typically fail DFSG tests.
The text of licenses (and
Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) writes:
The GFDL allows you to make any changes you like in the technical
substance of the manual, just as the TeX license allows you to make
any changes you like in the technical substance of TeX.
This is not
On Wed, Sep 17, 2003 at 11:55:23AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 10:19:54PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
7. Compliance with Laws; Non-Infringement. Recipient shall comply with all
applicable laws and regulations in connection with use and distribution of
the
On 2003-09-18 21:43:52 +0100 Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not quite. Texts of licenses and logos typically fail DFSG tests.
Licence notices escape for various reasons. Logos that fail DFSG
should be reported as a bug.
And what about research papers? Do you want to ban them,
On Thu, Sep 18, 2003 at 02:15:50PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Thu, 18 Sep 2003, Florian Weimer wrote:
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And we very clearly treat everything in Debian as software (see the
first clause of the Social Contract).
Not quite. Texts of licenses
This prompts an interesting question: Does the Official Debian logo
meet the DFSG test?
DFSG 8 says: License Must Not Be Specific to Debian
Yet the logo's license says:
Debian Official Use Logo License
Copyright (c) 1999 Software in the Public Interest
1. This logo may only be used if:
On Thu, 18 Sep 2003, Etienne Gagnon wrote:
This prompts an interesting question: Does the Official Debian logo
meet the DFSG test?
No, but I'm pretty sure that we don't include the official logo in the
Debian distribution.
Don Armstrong
--
A citizen of America will cross the ocean to fight
What do you mean failed utterly? We haven't even begun discussions
and this could not take less than months.
I am on the geek cruise and can't email much this week. Since GFDL documents
are not going to change instantly, I suggest you go ahead with whatever plans
you have to remove GFDL
On Thu, 2003-09-18 at 16:05, Walter Landry wrote:
The definition of transparent is similar to, but not the same as
source. For example, the source for a LyX document is not
transparent.
I understand that; in fact, I was one of the many people who pointed out
that problem. But that's not what
On Thu, 2003-09-18 at 15:17, Henning Makholm wrote:
Doable, perhaps. Free, no.
Quite.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
On Thu, 2003-09-18 at 20:37, Andrea wrote:
Yes, I'm traditionalist. Software is anything that can be treated as a
sequence of bits in a computer. Documentation is software. Ham
sandwiches aren't. :)
... at least until the replicator is invented.
signature.asc
Description: This is a
On Thu, 2003-09-18 at 21:48, Bruce Perens wrote:
What do you mean failed utterly? We haven't even begun discussions
and this could not take less than months.
As a matter of principle, the RMS and, I assume, the FSF want invarient
sections. As a matter of principle, Debian does not consider them
50 matches
Mail list logo
