Re: GNU FDL (was Re: Bug#141561: gnu-standards: Non-free software in main)

[Jeff Licquia]

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.)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: GNU FDL (was Re: Bug#141561: gnu-standards: Non-free software in main)

[Jaldhar H. Vyas]

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.

In part this is because thanks to apt-get and more widespread knowledge of
Debian packaging, it doesn't matter so much if the software is at
ftp.debian.org or ftp.evilhoarder.com anymore.  For myself, I don't even
bother bring up non-free stuff here anymore though I continue to use it.
Things like signed packages and LSB conformance should make it even easier
to use non-free software with Debian and I'm willing to bet many uers and
developers will continue to take advantage of it.  IMO, The status quo
satisfies most people and there would be opposition to attempts to
obstruct the use of non-free software.  Witness the response to Jeroen.

-- 
Jaldhar H. Vyas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
It's a girl! See the pictures - http://www.braincells.com/shailaja/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: GNU FDL (was Re: Bug#141561: gnu-standards: Non-free software in main)

[Manoj Srivastava]

>>"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 of the relevant
 Steve> copyright information, btw. :)

Well, if y'all can trust my aging memory, this is my impression
 of how things were.

From what I recall of that time, there was tension between the
 pragmatists(Hi Alex) and the GPL proponents* (of which at that time, I
 was one). The argument of the pragmatists was similar to what one
 hears on lkml right now vis-a-vis BitKeeper -- it is stupid to chose
 an inferior solution over a better one merely for licensing reasons,
 mention was made of things being free enough (essentially all we have
 in non-free is was deemed free enough), and the ultimate end goal was
 to produce the best, most useful, distribution ever. Also, the
 argument went that one needed to be pragmatic about software people
 ran if one were not to be marginalized  and made irrelevant; hence we
 needed to support ``real software that people used''. The GPL people
 were for essentially removing all non free software from Debian.

I don't think non software stuff even occurred to anyone at
 the time, so I don't think the argument that the DFSG precludes
 anything that is not software holds water (aside from the fact that
 anything on a website or on a debian cd can arguably be called
 software anyway).

The DFSG was a compromise: we said that only free software
 shall be a part of debian (hurrays from the GPL proponents), whike
 recognizing the needs for users to run software we did not feel were
 licensed under a free license. [The next bit is my OPINION]. The core
 of the philosophy was one of choice: we preferred free software, bit
 we did not constrain or coerce people to it; we advocated free
 software, but still provided help and support for users not yet
 running only free software; the premise was that people would realize
 on their own the virtues of free software, and as time went on, the
 non-free stuff would wither on its own accord. The users came above
 evangelizing free software.

The tenor of the project has changed.  No one argues that we
 need the non free stuff to survive anymore. 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. I, for one, still believe in offering people alternatives
 and choices, within Debian, and letting them choose. 

I'm sure that people shall rise up and flame me resoundingly
 for revisionist history, and set the record straight according to
 their recollection ;-). 

manoj
 putting on absestos long johns

*This category includes the DFSG free licenses like BSD, X, Artistic,
 as well
-- 
 "But this one goes to eleven." Nigel Tufnel
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: GNU FDL (was Re: Bug#141561: gnu-standards: Non-free software in main)

[Jeff Licquia]

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 copyright information, btw. :)

Here's a statement from Bruce Perens:

http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200111/msg00063.html


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: GNU FDL (was Re: Bug#141561: gnu-standards: Non-free software in main)

[Manoj Srivastava]

>>"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 we have today, who
 Steve> were not involved in the original composition of the Social
 Steve> Contract and the DFSG.

The author of the social contract is still around, as are some
 of the rest of us who were involved in the process. It is not as if
 we are all dead and gone like the US founding fathers, you know. You
 could just ask.

manoj
-- 
 BEWARE!  People acting under the influence of human nature.
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: GNU FDL (was Re: Bug#141561: gnu-standards: Non-free software in main)

[Manoj Srivastava]

>>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns  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 suchlike?

An invariant segment wouldn't preclude this, I think. You can
 add a new invariant segment that says "Though Worm Tongue has said
 foo did the deed, I, Manoj Srivastava, do hereby state it was bar who
 did it truly". And thus indelibly mark the disagreement in to the
 copyrighted work forever more.

I think adding a section, stating the correction, may be
 preferred to merely removing the incorrect statement -- and the
 evolving history of the saga.

nanoj

-- 
 The reward of energy, enterprise, and thrift--is taxes.
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: GNU FDL (was Re: Bug#141561: gnu-standards: Non-free software in main)

[Jeff Licquia]

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 create 
> > > > a 
> > > > DFDG, "Debian Free Documentation Guidelines".
> > > Why?  What freedoms are important for software that aren't for 
> > > documentation?
> > Revisionist history, for one.  
> 
> How about correcting a supposedly historical document, for example,
> taking a document that describes Windows as the progenitor of the trend
> for GUIs, and adding some explanation about Apple and Xerox and suchlike?

That would be the obvious counterexample.

Representing such changes as the opinions of the original author would
be bad, but the DFSG covers those cases already.

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 Mill
would be horrified to find his works published with "errata" edited by
J. Edgar Hoover.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: GNU FDL (was Re: Bug#141561: gnu-standards: Non-free software in main)

[Jeff Licquia]

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 modified to make it look like Linus Torvalds wrote
> > GCC, for example.
> 
> That would involve removing names from copyright notices, which isn't
> allowed for text *or* code.

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 be half the kernel it is without my obviously brilliant 
  improvements.  He did start the project, after all, even if he hasn't
  made a decent contribution in years.

Do you think Linus would have a problem with such a README for this
(fictitious) product?

> Except that a large part of the discussion is exactly whether
> documentation is considered software for the purposes of the DFSG, and
> you and many others are (incorrectly and repeatedly) speaking as if the
> issue is settled.

Hmm.  I'm probably guilty of not being clear.  That is, indeed, my point
- that there are some issues to resolve here, and they don't seem to be
resolved yet.

> I've yet to see an argument as to why Debian should call a text with the
> GNU Manifesto permanently embedded in it free, when it wouldn't do the
> same for a software license that did the same thing.  To me, it seems
> straightforward: understandable, but not free.

Having read lots more on last year's thread, I must confess that this is
the most troubling part of the whole debate.

On the one hand, it doesn't seem totally clear that freedom in
non-active written works necessarily requires modifiability.  We can
modify Thoreau (his works are in the public domain), but why would we
want to?  Isn't it more honest and more "free" to write your own works,
borrowing from people like Thoreau, but not tarring him with the taint
of our own incompletely understood ideas?

On the other, it also doesn't seem right that a quote of, say, a
paragraph or two of the Emacs manual would require me to embed the whole
of the GNU Manifesto in my manual.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: GNU FDL (was Re: Bug#141561: gnu-standards: Non-free software in main)

[Jeff Licquia]

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.
> >
> >http://people.debian.org/~jaq/jfdl.html
> 
> Of course, I meant
> 
> http://people.debian.org/~jaq/jfdg.html

Very nice.  I'm not sure it's 100% what's needed, but it's a good
starting point.

You might be a little more explicit that translations (which preserve
the meaning of the original, as you do point out) must be allowed, even
for invariant sections.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: GNU FDL (was Re: Bug#141561: gnu-standards: Non-free software in main)

[Richard Braakman]

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 GFDL.
> 
> I'm curious about your reasoning.  Have you posted it already?  If not,
> maybe it would be good to hear once woody is out.

It participated in the discussion that raged on debian-legal a while ago.
I stated some points, but I never presented my opinion as a whole.
I felt that others were already making my points quite adequately,
and that's just the way a mailing list discussion works.

Now that the discussion has died down (awaiting a response from the FSF),
it might be worthwhile for me to summarize my position.  If all the
participants did that and put it on a web page somewhere, it would be
a good introduction for people who missed the debate the first time
around.  I haven't had the energy, though.

-- 
Richard Braakman
"I sense a disturbance in the force"
"As though millions of voices cried out, and ran apt-get."
  (Anthony Towns about the Debian 3.0 release)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: GNU FDL (was Re: Bug#141561: gnu-standards: Non-free software in main)

[Mark Eichin]

> 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 words of the front cover text
(3) the 25 words of the back cover text.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: GNU FDL (was Re: Bug#141561: gnu-standards: Non-free software in main)

[Jeroen Dekkers]

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. For example : 
> > > open KHelpcenter and click on "Introduction to KDE".
> > 
> > We should also move binutils and gcc to non-free because the manpages
> > are under the GNU FDL.
> 
> So the FDL is a free license because it's inconvenient for it to be not?

I have never said that, learn to read!

Jeroen Dekkers
-- 
Jabber supporter - http://www.jabber.org Jabber ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Debian GNU supporter - http://www.debian.org http://www.gnu.org
IRC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


pgphIRMq7Lh0Y.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: GNU FDL (was Re: Bug#141561: gnu-standards: Non-free software in main)

[Jeff Licquia]

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 wanting a good definition of
> > "software".
> 
> I feel you are misrepresenting my position.

My apologies.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: GNU FDL (was Re: Bug#141561: gnu-standards: Non-free software in main)

[Jeff Licquia]

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 "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: GNU FDL (was Re: Bug#141561: gnu-standards: Non-free software in main)

[Branden Robinson]

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 consistent
with the DFSG.  It can also be applied in ways inconsistent with the
DFSG.

Please see:




Discussion of software vs. documentation, the precise meaning of DFSG 3,
and the GNU FDL in particular dominated the traffic on debian-legal for
two solid months.

The reason that there is no consensus was pretty nicely summed up by
Mark Rafn:



He said:

Just so I can follow the teams, is there anyone who doesn't feel
their position falls more-or-less into one of the following?

1) Documents aren't software, so it's ok to include non-free
documents in Debian.

2) Documents with some amount of invariant non-license text can
still be considered free.

3) Documents with non-license invariant text are non-free, and
don't belong in Debian.

4) Generally, we shouldn't include documents with invariant text
because they're not free, but we should make occasional
exceptions.

BTW, I have no clue how to resolve such a basic policy dispute.
I have a personal opinion, but I really expect that there won't
be many people moving between the above camps.

The present discussion should really be taking place on debian-legal.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson| "Why do we have to hide from the
Debian GNU/Linux   |  police, Daddy?"
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | "Because we use vi, son.  They use
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |  emacs."


pgp3N88KAy4H4.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: GNU FDL (was Re: Bug#141561: gnu-standards: Non-free software in main)

[Branden Robinson]

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 possibility that
> some things packaged for Debian might not be software.  His problem
> seemed to be with corner cases, and wanting a good definition of
> "software".

I feel you are misrepresenting my position.

http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200112/msg00027.html

"The Social Contract does not say: Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software
and Some Other Things That Aren't Software But Which Are Also Free But
Meet a Different Definition Of Free Than That Which Applies to Software,
Plus Some Other Stuff That Isn't Free By Any Stretch Of The Imagination
But Which We Thought Would Be Nice To Have."

-- 
G. Branden Robinson|  "I came, I saw, she conquered."
Debian GNU/Linux   |  The original Latin seems to have
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |  been garbled.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |  -- Robert Heinlein


pgpjr49WCG9hF.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: GNU FDL (was Re: Bug#141561: gnu-standards: Non-free software in main)

[Branden Robinson]

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 posted it already?  If not,
> maybe it would be good to hear once woody is out.

Jeff, you might want to read:

http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200202/msg00071.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200202/msg00073.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200202/msg00079.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200202/msg00081.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200202/msg00082.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200202/msg00099.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200202/msg00112.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200202/msg00137.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200202/msg00195.html

People who want to opine about licensing issues really, really should
subscribe to -legal.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson|
Debian GNU/Linux   | Music is the brandy of the damned.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- George Bernard Shaw
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |


pgpea6PUN8qBu.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: GNU FDL (was Re: Bug#141561: gnu-standards: Non-free software in main)

[Jeff Licquia]

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 follow the FSF's lead and start releasing
> > GFDL docs.
> 
> 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 posted it already?  If not,
maybe it would be good to hear once woody is out.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: GNU FDL (was Re: Bug#141561: gnu-standards: Non-free software in main)

[Jeff Licquia]

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 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, for example.

What do we want when we want freedom in software?  Are we really all
that interested in stealing credit for things, or putting words in other
people's mouths?  Or are we just interested in having control in how the
system works?

And if it's the latter, how does changing a historical document affect
the system's operation?

> If the GFDL fails the DFSG, I'd say the proper response *isn't* to craft
> a new set of guidelines for documentation to make it fit.

If software is licensed under the GFDL with Invariant Sections, yes. 
But we're not talking about software; we're talking about documentation.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: GNU FDL (was Re: Bug#141561: gnu-standards: Non-free software in main)

[Jeff Licquia]

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 conffiles, icons, etc.  So,
if we're to be true to our creed, here's what we have to do:

rm -rf /etc
rm -rf /usr/share/doc /usr/share/man /usr/share/info
rm -rf /var
rm -rf /dev

...and so on.  There, now Debian is 100% Free Software. :-)

Once you start stretching the meaning of words like this, you've gone
way off track; see Bill Gates's antitrust testimony or Clinton's "I did
not have sexual relations with that woman" speech for details.  

Debian has a set of values, described by the DFSG.  It's clear (at least
to me) that the description is imperfect.  We need to change it, or
append an additional statement (the DFDG, or whatever).  In the
meantime, we hold to the spirit, not the letter, of the DFSG, and
acknowledge that things are not quite as clear as they should be for
now.

I fear the alternatives to this path.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: GNU FDL (was Re: Bug#141561: gnu-standards: Non-free software in main)

[David Starner]

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 the DFSG are in conflict at least.
> 
> As far as I can see neither the gcc nor the binutils documentation has
> invariant sections. I don't know about KDE.

Take a closer look at the GCC documenation, at funding free software. 

-- 
David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"It's not a habit; it's cool; I feel alive. 
If you don't have it you're on the other side." 
- K's Choice (probably referring to the Internet)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: GNU FDL (was Re: Bug#141561: gnu-standards: Non-free software in main)

[Richard Braakman]

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 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.

Richard Braakman


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: GNU FDL (was Re: Bug#141561: gnu-standards: Non-free software in main)

[Sebastian Rittau]

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 nor the binutils documentation has
invariant sections. I don't know about KDE.

 - Sebastian


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: GNU FDL (was Re: Bug#141561: gnu-standards: Non-free software in main)

[Sebastian Rittau]

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 distribute non-software that doesn't have to modifieable.

I think nobody says (or at least means) that documentation don't need to
be modifiable at all. What is meant is that exactly what the GFDL says:

| A "Secondary Section" [...] contains nothing that could fall directly
| within that overall subject.  (For example, if the Document is in part
| a textbook of mathematics, a Secondary Section may not explain any
| mathematics.) [...]
|
| The "Invariant Sections" are certain Secondary Sections [...]

Invariant sections are thought for greeting, (non-technical) forewords,
motivation chapters and the like. It seems to be consensus that
documents with too many or too large invariant sections are non-free.
(As an example see the GConf API reference at developer.gnome.org.)

 - Sebastian


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: GNU FDL (was Re: Bug#141561: gnu-standards: Non-free software in main)

[David Starner]

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
accepted. What does that have to do with other invariant stuff? 
 
-- 
David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"It's not a habit; it's cool; I feel alive. 
If you don't have it you're on the other side." 
- K's Choice (probably referring to the Internet)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: GNU FDL (was Re: Bug#141561: gnu-standards: Non-free software in main)

[Craig Sanders]

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 our community are using this license.  Thus, the
> > onus is on you to put forth a real argument for why it's not free.
> 
> Um, it fails section 3 (Modifications permitted) of the DFSG? A
> strictly literal reading of the DFSG clearly prohibits Invariant
> Sections. Any body claiming that the FDL (with Invariant Sections) is
> free is basically proposing a change in the DFSG, or at least the
> readings or scope thereof. I'd say the onus is on the people who want
> to change the status quo.

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.

The GPL, BSD license and other licenses we consider to be DFSG-free all
allow "invariant sections" - specifically, attribution, copyright,
license, and similar administrivia.

even where this isn't specifically stated in the license, tradition &
custom within the free software community take it as a given that these
things are not to be changedbut acknowledging that requires the
application of common sense, which just proves that you're not playing
the debian game.

personally, i think that many debian people just like to argue
pedantically for the sake of arguing pedantically.  doesn't matter what
the issue is, the main thing is that a good (i.e. long-winded and
tedious) argument is had until everyone is bored into apathy.

this practice is, of course, a wonderful morale booster.  hip hip hooray.

craig

-- 
craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Fabricati Diem, PVNC.
 -- motto of the Ankh-Morpork City Watch


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: GNU FDL (was Re: Bug#141561: gnu-standards: Non-free software in main)

[Aurelien Jarno]

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 community are using this license.  Thus, the
> > onus is on you to put forth a real argument for why it's not free.
>
> Um, it fails section 3 (Modifications permitted) of the DFSG? A
> strictly literal reading of the DFSG clearly prohibits Invariant
> Sections. Any body claiming that the FDL (with Invariant Sections) is
> free is basically proposing a change in the DFSG, or at least the
> readings or scope thereof. I'd say the onus is on the people who want
> to change the status quo.

DFSG stand for "Debian Free Software Guidelines". IMHO we ave to create a 
DFDG, "Debian Free Documentation Guidelines".

Aurelien


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: GNU FDL (was Re: Bug#141561: gnu-standards: Non-free software in main)

[Jeff Licquia]

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 of the DFSG. A number of people would argue
> that small, nonfunctional invariant bits are okay, but anything more
> isn't. And you, and another group of people, see to think that Debian
> should distribute non-software that doesn't have to modifieable. Where's
> the rough consensus?

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 wanting a good definition of
"software".

Search for "bright line" in the thread, and maybe you'll see what I
mean.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: GNU FDL (was Re: Bug#141561: gnu-standards: Non-free software in main)

[Jeff Licquia]

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 depend on a non-free compiler.
> 
> Why do we need to pull gcc from main? We just need to pull gcc's
> documenation from main. 

Technically, yes.  But how useful is a compiler with no documentation?

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.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: GNU FDL (was Re: Bug#141561: gnu-standards: Non-free software in main)

[David Starner]

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, nonfunctional invariant bits are okay, but anything more
isn't. And you, and another group of people, see to think that Debian
should distribute non-software that doesn't have to modifieable. Where's
the rough consensus?
 
> I think we're guaranteed to not resolve it this time around; solving
> this would be too much of a distraction from woody.

True. Probably better let it all pass for woody, like we did for KDE in
the distant past.

-- 
David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"It's not a habit; it's cool; I feel alive. 
If you don't have it you're on the other side." 
- K's Choice (probably referring to the Internet)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: GNU FDL (was Re: Bug#141561: gnu-standards: Non-free software in main)

[David Starner]

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 gcc from main? We just need to pull gcc's
documenation from main. 
 
-- 
David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"It's not a habit; it's cool; I feel alive. 
If you don't have it you're on the other side." 
- K's Choice (probably referring to the Internet)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: GNU FDL (was Re: Bug#141561: gnu-standards: Non-free software in main)

[Steve Langasek]

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 our community are using this license.  Thus, the onus
> > is on you to put forth a real argument for why it's not free.

> Um, it fails section 3 (Modifications permitted) of the DFSG? A strictly
> literal reading of the DFSG clearly prohibits Invariant Sections. Any
> body claiming that the FDL (with Invariant Sections) is free is
> basically proposing a change in the DFSG, or at least the readings or
> scope thereof. I'd say the onus is on the people who want to change the
> status quo.

Don't forget that section 3 of the DFSG is modified by section 4, 
"Integrity of the Author's Source Code".  If documentation is software 
(and some have argued that it must be, or the Social Contract doesn't 
allow us to ship it), then I believe it is source code; and if it's 
source code, section 4 of the DFSG describes a method by which we permit 
authors to protect the integrity of their work while still being 
considered free.  Since the DFSG does not define "patch files" as being 
in any particular format (or even specify that they must be patches as 
used by patch(1)), I would be interested to hear if anyone thinks 
documentation must be treated as software, but cannot reasonably make 
use of the exemption in section 4.

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer


pgprGuBx2fwon.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: GNU FDL (was Re: Bug#141561: gnu-standards: Non-free software in main)

[Jeff Licquia]

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" reads as "redefinition".  You can't do that without
> a supermajority GR, as determined by the Debian Project Secretary the last
> time an attempt to modify the Social Contract/DFSG document was made.

No, I meant "clarification".  Several people (including an original
author of the DFSG) have weighed in that there is no conflict between
the DFSG and the GFDL.

They may be wrong, but there's no consensus on that either.  So, the
possibility cannot be dismissed outright.

"Redefinition" amounts to "change" in my list of options, IMHO.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: GNU FDL (was Re: Bug#141561: gnu-standards: Non-free software in main)

[Jeff Licquia]

On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 22:40, Joseph Carter wrote:
> 
> This should have been dealt with sooner.  But the past three times the FDL
> has been discussed on this list, no concensus was reached.  The only thing
> we can be certain of is that there are enough problems with it to prevent
> any consensus.
> 
> Call me a pessimist if you like, but I suspect that we'll get no different
> results this time.  Nobody wants to bear the fallout of a conclusion
> against the FDL, and no attempt to revise the DFSG has ever succeeded.

I don't know.  Call me an optimist, but I seem to be hearing a rough
consensus.

What we as a project need to do, I think, is clarify this distinction
between "software" and "non-software" somehow.  Once that's done, I
think that everyone seems to be agreed that "free non-software" can have
some licensing limitations that are unacceptable for "free software",
and that the GFDL is a "free non-software license".

Indeed, the problem seems to be rooted in the question "is there
anything besides software?" more than in the question "what is software
and what isn't".

> I expect the issue will eventually be dropped (again) without resolution
> and either Debian will continue to cover its ears and hum real loud,
> unless someone is foolish enough to believe that they can gather a
> supermajority of the project to modify the DFSG.

I think we're guaranteed to not resolve it this time around; solving
this would be too much of a distraction from woody.

I think, though, that this should be the first order of business around,
say, May 7 or so.  (See?  I really am an optimist. :-)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: GNU FDL (was Re: Bug#141561: gnu-standards: Non-free software in main)

[Joseph Carter]

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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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" reads as "redefinition".  You can't do that without
a supermajority GR, as determined by the Debian Project Secretary the last
time an attempt to modify the Social Contract/DFSG document was made.

(Personally, I think that was a very unwise precedent to set..  Who has
the authority to change it?  Does Manoj, as the current secretary?)

-- 
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  You're entitled to my opinion
 
 those apparently-bacteria-like multicolor worms coming out of
  microsoft's backorifice
 that's the backoffice logo



pgpolb8NRMfaQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: GNU FDL (was Re: Bug#141561: gnu-standards: Non-free software in main)

[Joseph Carter]

On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 10:26:48PM -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
> > > We should also move binutils and gcc to non-free because the manpages
> > > are under the GNU FDL.
> > 
> > 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 community are using this license.  Thus, the onus
> is on you to put forth a real argument for why it's not free.

This has been done already.  Several threads have been referenced in which
no consensus was ever reached that the license is free.

-- 
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  glDisable (DX8_CRAP);
 
 you don't have to be insane to work hereoh wait, yes you do!
:)



pgpUN5zjhhOpm.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: GNU FDL (was Re: Bug#141561: gnu-standards: Non-free software in main)

[Joseph Carter]

On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 08:50:43PM -0500, Jeff Licquia 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. For example : 
> > > > open KHelpcenter and click on "Introduction to KDE".
> > > 
> > > We should also move binutils and gcc to non-free because the manpages
> > > are under the GNU FDL.
> > 
> > So the FDL is a free license because it's inconvenient for it to be not?
> 
> 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.

This should have been dealt with sooner.  But the past three times the FDL
has been discussed on this list, no concensus was reached.  The only thing
we can be certain of is that there are enough problems with it to prevent
any consensus.

Call me a pessimist if you like, but I suspect that we'll get no different
results this time.  Nobody wants to bear the fallout of a conclusion
against the FDL, and no attempt to revise the DFSG has ever succeeded.

I expect the issue will eventually be dropped (again) without resolution
and either Debian will continue to cover its ears and hum real loud,
unless someone is foolish enough to believe that they can gather a
supermajority of the project to modify the DFSG.

-- 
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Sanity is counterproductive
 
* HomeySan waits for the papa john's pizza to show up
 mm. papa john's.
 hopefully they send the cute delivery driver
 they dont have that here.
 why? you gonna eat the driver instead?



pgpQpczfrRADP.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: GNU FDL (was Re: Bug#141561: gnu-standards: Non-free software in main)

[Jeff Licquia]

On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 22:08, 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 our community are using this license.  Thus, the onus
> > is on you to put forth a real argument for why it's not free.
> 
> Um, it fails section 3 (Modifications permitted) of the DFSG? A strictly
> literal reading of the DFSG clearly prohibits Invariant Sections. Any
> body claiming that the FDL (with Invariant Sections) is free is
> basically proposing a change in the DFSG, or at least the readings or
> scope thereof. I'd say the onus is on the people who want to change the
> status quo.

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.

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.

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.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: GNU FDL (was Re: Bug#141561: gnu-standards: Non-free software in main)

[David Starner]

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 community are using this license.  Thus, the onus
> is on you to put forth a real argument for why it's not free.

Um, it fails section 3 (Modifications permitted) of the DFSG? A strictly
literal reading of the DFSG clearly prohibits Invariant Sections. Any
body claiming that the FDL (with Invariant Sections) is free is
basically proposing a change in the DFSG, or at least the readings or
scope thereof. I'd say the onus is on the people who want to change the
status quo.

-- 
David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"It's not a habit; it's cool; I feel alive. 
If you don't have it you're on the other side." 
- K's Choice (probably referring to the Internet)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: GNU FDL (was Re: Bug#141561: gnu-standards: Non-free software in main)

[Colin Walters]

On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 20:28, 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. For example : 
> > > open KHelpcenter and click on "Introduction to KDE".
> > 
> > We should also move binutils and gcc to non-free because the manpages
> > are under the GNU FDL.
> 
> 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 community are using this license.  Thus, the onus
is on you to put forth a real argument for why it's not free.



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: GNU FDL (was Re: Bug#141561: gnu-standards: Non-free software in main)

[Jeff Licquia]

On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 19:28, 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. For example : 
> > > open KHelpcenter and click on "Introduction to KDE".
> > 
> > We should also move binutils and gcc to non-free because the manpages
> > are under the GNU FDL.
> 
> So the FDL is a free license because it's inconvenient for it to be not?

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.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: GNU FDL (was Re: Bug#141561: gnu-standards: Non-free software in main)

[Branden Robinson]

On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 09:34:45PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> I thought that it hasn't been finally resolved if the GNU FDL meets
> the DFSG or not.  However, there seemed to be consensus on documents
> released under the GFDL with large sections marked invariant are
> probably not DFSG-compliant, but documents with small, off-topic
> parts are.

There was no such consensus.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson|  You live and learn.
Debian GNU/Linux   |  Or you don't live long.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |  -- Robert Heinlein
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |


pgp5aff0ebGpc.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: GNU FDL (was Re: Bug#141561: gnu-standards: Non-free software in main)

[Joseph Carter]

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. For example : 
> > open KHelpcenter and click on "Introduction to KDE".
> 
> We should also move binutils and gcc to non-free because the manpages
> are under the GNU FDL.

So the FDL is a free license because it's inconvenient for it to be not?

-- 
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  If this sig were funny...
 
* bma wonders if this will make the Knghtbrd .sig



pgpGrkKV5UqCr.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: GNU FDL (was Re: Bug#141561: gnu-standards: Non-free software in main)

[Jeroen Dekkers]

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, there seemed to be consensus on documents
> > released under the GFDL with large sections marked invariant are
> > probably not DFSG-compliant, but documents with small, off-topic
> > parts are.  Check the archive of debian-legal.
> 
> i can be wrong but the new fdl specifies that invariant sections should
> be off-topic. 

The funny thing is that this is made clear in the thread he pointed
at. That thread is a really interested read BTW (it makes me subscribe
to debian-legal :-).

Jeroen Dekkers
-- 
Jabber supporter - http://www.jabber.org Jabber ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Debian GNU supporter - http://www.debian.org http://www.gnu.org
IRC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


pgpVu28cB1yzE.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: GNU FDL (was Re: Bug#141561: gnu-standards: Non-free software in main)

[Federico Di Gregorio]

Il dom, 2002-04-07 alle 21:34, Martin Schulze ha scritto:
> Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > Le Dimanche 7 Avril 2002 09:57, Ben Pfaff a écrit :
> > > Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > Package: gnu-standards
> > > > Version: 2002.01.12-1
> > > > Severity: serious
> > > > Justification: Policy 2.1.2
> > > >
> > > > 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 3.
> > > >
> > > > Please move this package to non-free.
> > 
> > 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, there seemed to be consensus on documents
> released under the GFDL with large sections marked invariant are
> probably not DFSG-compliant, but documents with small, off-topic
> parts are.  Check the archive of debian-legal.

i can be wrong but the new fdl specifies that invariant sections should
be off-topic. 

--8<
A "Secondary Section" is a named appendix or a front-matter section of
the Document that deals exclusively with the relationship of the
publishers or authors of the Document to the Document's overall subject
(or to related matters) and contains nothing that could fall directly
within that overall subject. (For example, if the Document is in part a
textbook of mathematics, a Secondary Section may not explain any
mathematics.) The relationship could be a matter of historical
connection with the subject or with related matters, or of legal,
commercial, philosophical, ethical or political position regarding them.

The "Invariant Sections" are certain Secondary Sections whose titles are
designated, as being those of Invariant Sections, in the notice that
says that the Document is released under this License. 


-- 
Federico Di Gregorio
Debian GNU/Linux Developer & Italian Press Contact[EMAIL PROTECTED]
INIT.D Developer   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Viviamo in un mondo reale, Ciccio. -- Lucy


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: GNU FDL (was Re: Bug#141561: gnu-standards: Non-free software in main)

[Martin Schulze]

Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> Le Dimanche 7 Avril 2002 09:57, Ben Pfaff a écrit :
> > Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Package: gnu-standards
> > > Version: 2002.01.12-1
> > > Severity: serious
> > > Justification: Policy 2.1.2
> > >
> > > 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 3.
> > >
> > > Please move this package to non-free.
> 
> 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, there seemed to be consensus on documents
released under the GFDL with large sections marked invariant are
probably not DFSG-compliant, but documents with small, off-topic
parts are.  Check the archive of debian-legal.

This article may be helpful:

http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal-0111/msg6.html

Regards,

Joey

-- 
A mathematician is a machine for converting coffee into theorems.

Please always Cc to me when replying to me on the lists.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: GNU FDL (was Re: Bug#141561: gnu-standards: Non-free software in main)

[Jeroen Dekkers]

On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 11:05:03AM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> Le Dimanche 7 Avril 2002 09:57, Ben Pfaff a ?crit :
> > Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Package: gnu-standards
> > > Version: 2002.01.12-1
> > > Severity: serious
> > > Justification: Policy 2.1.2
> > >
> > > 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 3.
> > >
> > > Please move this package to non-free.
> 
> 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. For example : 
> open KHelpcenter and click on "Introduction to KDE".

We should also move binutils and gcc to non-free because the manpages
are under the GNU FDL.

Jeroen Dekkers
-- 
Jabber supporter - http://www.jabber.org Jabber ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Debian GNU supporter - http://www.debian.org http://www.gnu.org
IRC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


pgp0I7YA1WioQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature