Re: RFC about copyrights and right package section for W3C docs.
On Thu, Sep 20, 2001 at 07:04:12PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > On the other hand, licenses themselves are not subject to being licensed, > thus DFSG requirements don't refer to the bogus concept of a license > about a license. Why aren't licenses subject to being licensed? They are large copyrighted works; you could restrict and license a license anyway you want. The GPL has a license; it's: Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed. Anyway, that's not what was being discussed. The question was about the large sections of text in some GNU Free Documentation License'd texts that can not be modified - for example, "Funding Free Software" in the gcc manual. Is that DFSG-free or otherwise permissable in main? If it is, then what about other unmodifiable texts? Where's the line, and why? -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org When the aliens come, when the deathrays hum, when the bombers bomb, we'll still be freakin' friends. - "Freakin' Friends"
Re: RFC about copyrights and right package section for W3C docs.
On Thu, Sep 20, 2001 at 10:01:55PM +0200, Robert Bihlmeyer wrote: > > It isn't. But the DFSG don't state that every bit of a package must be > > modifiable, either. I take it that every functional part must be > > modifyable at least. On Thu, Sep 20, 2001 at 05:21:41PM -0500, David Starner wrote: > "(3) The license must allow modifications and derived works . . ." > No qualifications on modifications here. 4 is the patch clause, which > makes no qualifactions on what can be modified, just how, except for > name or version changes. It doesn't let you restrict what can be > modified, and it only applies to source code. On the other hand, licenses themselves are not subject to being licensed, thus DFSG requirements don't refer to the bogus concept of a license about a license. -- Raul
Re: RFC about copyrights and right package section for W3C docs.
On Thu, Sep 20, 2001 at 10:01:55PM +0200, Robert Bihlmeyer wrote: > David Starner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I don't see the distinction. Are icons metadata? The name almost certainly > > is . . . but we made a special exception for name changes in the DFSG. > > Icons are not metadata. The author is metadata, as is the publisher, > and when something was published. None of which we were talking about; all of which the GPL forces you to preserve on source code. > > > You can't take package X from main, > > > change /usr/share/doc/X/copyright, and redistribute it (except for > > > packages in the public domain). > > > > But that's fraud. We can't do that for legal and ethical reasons. That > > has nothing to do with removing some rant that the original author > > wrote. > > Have you actual examples of rants that are protected by FDL invariant > sections to point at, or do you make this up while you go along? Look at the gcc info pages. "Funding Free software" is clearly marked uneditable at the bottom, and is also listed as invariant in the license tag (I had to look in the source file - it's not listed in the /usr/share/doc/gcc-3.0-doc/copyright, nor could I find it in the info files.) "GNU and Linux" is not, amazing enough . . . > * Acknowledgements > > Robert Bihlmeyer wants to thank Gnomovision for their support. They > basically paid him to do nothing so he could write the Frobster3000 > manual. > > Do you consider this DFSG-free? Yes. > Is removing this less unethical than > removing my name altogether? Yes, but not much. > From my viewpoint, its like BSD/advertising. Not pretty, but free. Sure. > > I don't see where metadata is specified in the DFSG, > > It isn't. But the DFSG don't state that every bit of a package must be > modifiable, either. I take it that every functional part must be > modifyable at least. "(3) The license must allow modifications and derived works . . ." No qualifications on modifications here. 4 is the patch clause, which makes no qualifactions on what can be modified, just how, except for name or version changes. It doesn't let you restrict what can be modified, and it only applies to source code. > Finally, applying the Debian Free *Software* Guidelines may be a bit > off, altogether. Oh, indeed! I emphatically agree. But if we're going to ignore the DFSG, I'd like some coherent consensus on acceptable licenses for documentation, instead of just ad-hoc decisions. -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org When the aliens come, when the deathrays hum, when the bombers bomb, we'll still be freakin' friends. - "Freakin' Friends"
Re: RFC about copyrights and right package section for W3C docs.
David Starner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > IPv6 and C99 didn't change IPv4 or C89, did they? Indeed, gcc 3.0 didn't automatically delete all copies of gcc 2.95 either, and MS-Windows 95 was not impacted by '98. Does that imply that these software packages are eternally fixed and never revised? > I don't see the distinction. Are icons metadata? The name almost certainly > is . . . but we made a special exception for name changes in the DFSG. Icons are not metadata. The author is metadata, as is the publisher, and when something was published. > > You can't take package X from main, > > change /usr/share/doc/X/copyright, and redistribute it (except for > > packages in the public domain). > > But that's fraud. We can't do that for legal and ethical reasons. That > has nothing to do with removing some rant that the original author > wrote. Have you actual examples of rants that are protected by FDL invariant sections to point at, or do you make this up while you go along? Now I'll make something up ... suppose I place the following short chapter under a "don't remove this, you may add to it" clause: * Acknowledgements Robert Bihlmeyer wants to thank Gnomovision for their support. They basically paid him to do nothing so he could write the Frobster3000 manual. Do you consider this DFSG-free? Is removing this less unethical than removing my name altogether? Now, down to earth. /usr/share/doc/info/copyright says: All manuals Copyright (C) 1988, 1990-1993, 1995-2001 Free Software Foundation, Inc. Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.1 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, with the Front-Cover texts being ``A GNU Manual'', and with the Back-Cover Texts as in (a) below. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled ``GNU Free Documentation License'' in the Emacs manual. (a) The FSF's Back-Cover Text is: ``You have freedom to copy and modify this GNU Manual, like GNU software. Copies published by the Free Software Foundation raise funds for GNU development.'' It's in main. Do you consider that non-free? >From my viewpoint, its like BSD/advertising. Not pretty, but free. > I don't see where metadata is specified in the DFSG, It isn't. But the DFSG don't state that every bit of a package must be modifiable, either. I take it that every functional part must be modifyable at least. > except a specific exception for name changes. Actually (4) grants more exceptions. Finally, applying the Debian Free *Software* Guidelines may be a bit off, altogether. -- Robbe signature.ng Description: PGP signature
debian documentations for my webside
Hello the Debian Project,my name is Manfred Heyen,I want to create a new webside with the name - Debian Project Releases - . I want to give the visiter a overview about the Debian Releases from the begining until today, with original documentations and other material I found.My questions are: Can I get old ( and newer )documentations from your server to make material for my new webside? Which way? and is`t on your FTP-Server or can I get it from an other FTP-Server?, need I a specially username, password or can I do it anonymous to connect the server?I try to visit the Debian Archive Server, but I can connect them. mfg: Manfred Heyen.
