Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

[Anthony DeRobertis]

> What About Unmodifiable Software Licenses Like the GNU GPL?

Strike that text! It's not true. Noting
, let me try:


 start new answer 

The Free Software Foundation clarifies what it means by "...but changing
[the GPL] is not allowed" in its GPL FAQ at
. In brief, this
says that you may change the GPL provided that:

1) You remove the FSF's endorsement of the license which
   is the preamble. The Debian Project has no problem with
   this; it is certainly an author's right to refuse to
   endorse arbitrary changes.

2) You do not call the license "GPL" and make it clear that it
   isn't the GPL. We understand that certain types of software,
   require this, and thus our DFSG explicitly permits this,
   stating "The license may require derived works to carry a
   different name or version number from the original software."

So, the full terms that the GPL is distributed under, as explained on
the FSF website, actually comply with the DFSG.

 end new answer 


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

[Steve Langasek]

On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 10:49:26PM +0200, Thomas Uwe Gruettmueller wrote:

> > There's lots of software in non-free that is freely
> > distributable, but non-free for other reasons, such as
> > limitations on commercial use.  Non- free things should go in
> > non-free, even if there's a lack of free equivalents.

> I agree that they should not stay in main, but I don't think 
> that freely distributable documents should be mixed with stuff 
> which is not allowed to be distributed commercially, or which 
> according to its license, cannot be exported to Iraq. 

Why should Debian distinguish between different shades of non-freeness?
Are you aware that there is much software already in non-free which is
freely redistributable but non-modifiable?

-- 
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer


pgpMT57AVSXPO.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

[Glenn Maynard]

On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 12:33:21PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> RFC authors do it all the time, by issuing updates to existing RFC
> documents.  They say "Do it like this, except for this, this, and this".

This argument would suggest that any unmodifiable, freely-distributable
document is free.  You can reference *any* document in this way. It's
certainly not similar to software patches.  (And I believe many people on
this list consider the "patches" exception to have been an error.)

There's nothing free about being forced to do this.

-- 
Glenn Maynard

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

[Matthew Palmer]

On Fri, 25 Apr 2003, Glenn Maynard wrote:

> > To roast a hoary chestnut, I've not yet seen a good argument why we'd
> > want the RFCs to be relicensed as DFSG-free, apart from the "so it can
> > go into Debian main".  Modifying an RFC and re-releasing it is not a
> > good thing, but the DFSG says it is
> 
> I suppose this is opportunity to say that this begs the question.  :)
> 
> Being able to modify an RFC and re-release it is absolutely a good thing.
> Why should I have to start from scratch when writing a new spec that
> resembles an older one?  Why shouldn't I be able to reuse parts of other
> RFCs?

RFC authors do it all the time, by issuing updates to existing RFC
documents.  They say "Do it like this, except for this, this, and this".

Since software is not written in English, we can't exactly use the same
methodology as an RFC to write new versions of our software (unless we take
this to be the human language equivalent of a patch).  Hmm, that suggests
that all documentation which can be redistributed is DFSG free... 


-- 
---
#include 
Matthew Palmer, Geek In Residence
http://ieee.uow.edu.au/~mjp16

Re: Is documentation different from software [Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL]

[Matthew Palmer]

On Fri, 25 Apr 2003, Mark Rafn wrote:

> > Could we produce a distinction amongst our offerings in the following
> > manner:
> 
> Why do we want to produce a distinction where there is none?

We obviously disagree on whether there is a distinction.

> > To roast a hoary chestnut, I've not yet seen a good argument why we'd want
> > the RFCs to be relicensed as DFSG-free, apart from the "so it can go into
> > Debian main". 
> 
> Oh, that's easy.  I wish they were free so I could reuse the good bits in 
> other works, and otherwise improve my world by creating and distributing 
> derived works.

I see nothing in the RFC licence which limits you from doing that.  Even all
rights reserved doesn't limit you from doing that in practice, since you can
always make a reference to the other work.  But the RFC licence allows you
to go further - Section 3 of the general guidelines for copyright of RFCs
(as I've just read it from /usr/share/doc/doc-rfc-std/copyright, doc-std-rfc
version 20010829-1) states that "Copying and distributing portions of an
RFC" is allowed.  Proper credit and citations must be provided.

> > Modifying an RFC and re-releasing it is not a good thing
> 
> It's exactly as good a thing as modifying Apache and re-releasing it.  
> The modified version is expected to fit someone's needs better than the
> original.

Except that it's typically a lot easier to work out where a program has been
incompatibly modified ("oops, compile error, damn, the API changed") than a
standard has been modified.  The use of 'diff' notwithstanding.

> License texts themselves are a special case.  The actual terms of the 
> grant of permission cannot be changed, and can only be encoded in the 
> original wording.  That makes perfect sense, and is fundamentally 
> different from a copyrightable work in a definable way.

I'll agree with that.  Should something along those lines go somewhere
definitive so we can point people who say "but you can't change the GPL!  So
that's non-free!".


-- 
---
#include 
Matthew Palmer, Geek In Residence
http://ieee.uow.edu.au/~mjp16

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

[Glenn Maynard]

On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 10:04:31AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> To roast a hoary chestnut, I've not yet seen a good argument why we'd want
> the RFCs to be relicensed as DFSG-free, apart from the "so it can go into
> Debian main".  Modifying an RFC and re-releasing it is not a good thing, but
> the DFSG says it is

I suppose this is opportunity to say that this begs the question.  :)

Being able to modify an RFC and re-release it is absolutely a good thing.
Why should I have to start from scratch when writing a new spec that
resembles an older one?  Why shouldn't I be able to reuse parts of other
RFCs?

The only possible problem is if someone releases a modified RFC and doesn't
mark it appropriately, but that's easily solved (require a name change).
I've yet to see a good argument why RFCs shouldn't be free.

-- 
Glenn Maynard

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

[Henning Makholm]

Scripsit "Joe Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Henning Makholm said:

> > No, we just said that license text are sufficiently non-software-like to
> > enjoy an exception.

> I think the key reason (that licenses are acceptable invariant texts) is
> that the license text is a legal agreement between _you_ and the
> _copyright holder_.
> That is why the license texts must be "invariant".

But as we've found out now, the part of the GPL that is actually
invariant is the preamble, which has no legal content...

-- 
Henning Makholm "Nemo enim fere saltat sobrius, nisi forte insanit."

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

[Henning Makholm]

Scripsit Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 02:21:24PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:

> > excellent place to refer to Brian's discovery.

> /me sniffles dejectedly

> But I made the same "discovery" 2 days earlier, on Tue, 22 Apr 2003
> 12:49:47 -0500 in Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.

Apologies. I don't keep books on who said what first, just copied
Joey's attibution.

-- 
Henning Makholm  "- Or hast thee (perverted) designs
to attempt (strange, hybrid) procreation
  experiments with this (virginal female) self?"

Is documentation different from software [Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL]

[Mark Rafn]

On Sat, 26 Apr 2003, Matthew Palmer wrote:

> I was about to pipe up with "but we don't distribute novels with Debian"
> until I realised that we want to distribute a few other novel-like things -
> pure documentation not associated with a specific software program (eg the
> hoary old chestnut of the RFCs).

And interactive fiction, and screensaver artworks, and actual novels 
perhaps.

> So, I have to start thinking again about
> documentation in a different light to software. 

I'm still completely unconvinced that there is any useful distinction
between a fractal generator, the generated fractal image (with human input
on parameters, colors, etc), a paper describing what fractals are, a
document describing how to make pretty fractals from the generator, and a
poem inspired by a fractal.

They're all encodable as streams of bits.  They all require effort and
creativity to create.  They all are useful to a recipient.  They all are
free iff a user can modify and copy them.

> Could we produce a distinction amongst our offerings in the following
> manner:

Why do we want to produce a distinction where there is none?

> DFSG applies to software.  (duh).  DFSG applied to docs for software (for
> all the very good reasons given in the draft Debian GFDL FAQ).  But for
> "other documentation" (and we'd need to have a pretty clear definition of
> what that was before going too far forward) there could be a second set of
> guidelines for it's inclusion in Debian.

Why?  Why would we call a poem which cannot be modified "free" if we don't 
also think a poetry generator which cannot be modified is free?

> To roast a hoary chestnut, I've not yet seen a good argument why we'd want
> the RFCs to be relicensed as DFSG-free, apart from the "so it can go into
> Debian main". 

Oh, that's easy.  I wish they were free so I could reuse the good bits in 
other works, and otherwise improve my world by creating and distributing 
derived works.

This is absolutly no different from why you'd want a piece of software to 
be licensed freely.

> Modifying an RFC and re-releasing it is not a good thing

It's exactly as good a thing as modifying Apache and re-releasing it.  
The modified version is expected to fit someone's needs better than the
original.

> The DFSG, social contract, GNU Manifesto, software
> licences, all of these are non-software documentation which we want to
> distribute (OK, maybe not the GM) but which in general we don't *want* to be
> DFSG-free.

The owners of these documents should be encouraged to make them free, and 
if not, they should go in non-free.

License texts themselves are a special case.  The actual terms of the 
grant of permission cannot be changed, and can only be encoded in the 
original wording.  That makes perfect sense, and is fundamentally 
different from a copyrightable work in a definable way.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]  

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

[Matthew Palmer]

On Fri, 25 Apr 2003, Jeremy Hankins wrote:

[Disclaimer: if, at any point during the reading of this message, you see a
point which has been raised and covered before, please point me to the
archive message.  I couldn't find anything in the d-legal archives back to
Jan-2002 which appeared to deal with this.  My apologies if I've rehashed
something done to death before.]

> I think this is definitely not the d-l consensus.  On one hand, the
> benefits to be gained from a free-software-like approach to purely
> artistic/aesthetic (i.e., non-functional) works aren't as obvious.
> While one can imagine exceptions, it's not as useful to mix-and-match
> bits of a novel into your own novel.  You don't see nearly as many
> collaborative novels or paintings as programs, and I imagine that an
> authors pride in a work is much more associated with the work as a
> whole in the case of a novel or painting than in a program.

I was about to pipe up with "but we don't distribute novels with Debian"
until I realised that we want to distribute a few other novel-like things -
pure documentation not associated with a specific software program (eg the
hoary old chestnut of the RFCs).  So, I have to start thinking again about
documentation in a different light to software.  Could we produce a
distinction amongst our offerings in the following manner:

* Software.  Anything intended to instruct a computational device to perform
some action.  Yes, total crap definition, but it gets the idea across.

* Documentation for software.  Intended to enlighten humans on the design,
implementation, usage, etc of a specific piece software.

* Other documentation.  Standards, DFSG, GNU manifesto, etc.

DFSG applies to software.  (duh).  DFSG applied to docs for software (for
all the very good reasons given in the draft Debian GFDL FAQ).  But for
"other documentation" (and we'd need to have a pretty clear definition of
what that was before going too far forward) there could be a second set of
guidelines for it's inclusion in Debian.

To roast a hoary chestnut, I've not yet seen a good argument why we'd want
the RFCs to be relicensed as DFSG-free, apart from the "so it can go into
Debian main".  Modifying an RFC and re-releasing it is not a good thing, but
the DFSG says it is, and we want that right (if we're applying DFSG to
everything that goes into main, that is).

The non-software documentation category seems to fit everything else we're
worried about, too.  The DFSG, social contract, GNU Manifesto, software
licences, all of these are non-software documentation which we want to
distribute (OK, maybe not the GM) but which in general we don't *want* to be
DFSG-free.

So, could it be possible to come up with a definition of non-software
documentation, about which we could say "it must be free for verbatim
distribution (with copyright notices attached), translation, and conversion
into other machine-readable formats" but which, apart from that,
normal copyright restrictions could apply?

My first stab at a non-software documentation definition would be something
like:

* It must be intended for final consumption by a human reader.

* It must not be specifically intended to apply to, or to refer to, a
particular piece of software [I'm trying to word this so that the same doc
which could be for many softwares, like a licence text, qualifies, but a
README doesn't, because we'd want to modify a readme]

* If distributed with a package of software, modification of the software or
changing circumstance should not require a modification of the
documentation.

Not perfectly clear, and probably with loopholes you could put a jumbo
through, but I think it's enough for the open-minded reader to get an
understanding of.


-- 
---
#include 
Matthew Palmer, Geek In Residence
http://ieee.uow.edu.au/~mjp16

Re: If Debian decides that the Gnu Free Doc License is not free...

[Brian T. Sniffen]

>> As far as I am concerned, I have no desire to have ReiserFS distributed 
>> for free by anyone who removes the GNU manifesto or similar expressions 
>> from Stallman's work (or my own) and redistributes it.  It is simply a 
>> matter of respect that is due the author.
>
> Respect is due; but it is up to Debian to decide how to show respect.

To be clear, Debian isn't talking about removing the GNU Manifesto
from even a single package.  The only question is what permissions are
granted to Debian and its users.  That none of us have any intention
of taking advantage of freedom to injure the original authors of this
software does not prevent us from recognizing whether we have such
freedom.

-Brian

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

[Thomas Uwe Gruettmueller]

Hi Glenn,

On Friday 25 April 2003 05:00, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 04:57:36AM +0200, Thomas Uwe 
Gruettmueller wrote:
> > On the other hand, the DFSGly non-free docs that are about
> > to be thrown out of main are at least as freely
> > distributable as any other package in main. This is a
> > quality that many packages in non-free do not share with
> > them.
>
> There's lots of software in non-free that is freely
> distributable, but non-free for other reasons, such as
> limitations on commercial use.  Non- free things should go in
> non-free, even if there's a lack of free equivalents.

I agree that they should not stay in main, but I don't think 
that freely distributable documents should be mixed with stuff 
which is not allowed to be distributed commercially, or which 
according to its license, cannot be exported to Iraq. 

If the new section proposed below is considered a subset of 
'non-free', then I fully agree with the above.

> > As I don't have non-free in my
> > apt/sources.list, from my point of view, moving these docs
> > to the 'non-free' section would practically mean the same
> > thing as moving them to the trash dump. I guess this step
> > would be far too radical.
>
> Requiring you to add a line or two to sources.list isn't
> "trashing" anything.

I'm not convinced, yet. Can I configure apt-cache that it 
produces red '[contrib]' and '[non-free]' warnings like 
packages.debian.org?

> If this is a "radical" move, I'd say the earlier one of moving
> non-free software to non-free was an order of magnitude more
> "radical".

Is there any documentation of the history of the 'non-free' 
section? Have there been similar discussions?

> > So, now I'm repeating an idea that I alredy mentioned here,
> > after selfhtml had been kicked:
> >
> >  * Create a section 'distributable' that is between main and
> >non-free, for stuff that is not free WRT modification,
> >availability of the source code etc., but at least freely
> >distributable in any medium, by anybody, for any price.
>
> Distributors can already do this.  I don't think Debian should
> be expending time categorizing non-free into "non-free and
> really non-free"; let people who would actually use the
> distinction (distributors) spend the time. (It'd be a fair bit
> of time, requiring further analysis of clearly non-free
> licenses.)

Right. The suggestion was primarily adressed to those people who 
would like to change the DFSG. If they want to have guidelines 
for lesser free software, in order to build a lesser free 
variant of Debian, they are always free to create them, but 
please not by replacing the original DFSG and the original 
Debian!

cu,
Thomas
 }:o{#

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

[Joe Moore]

Henning Makholm said:
> Scripsit Anthony Towns 
>
>> >  If only we could be sure that the license on the manuals would
>> allow a user who thinks that "because!" is reason enough for
>> him, to remove the GNU Manifesto, we probably could still
>> distribute the unmidified manuals with the Invariant Section in
>> it.
>
>> Didn't we just say we're not making exceptions for things that are
>> "sufficiently non-software-like"?
>
> No, we just said that license text are sufficiently non-software-like to
> enjoy an exception.

I think the key reason (that licenses are acceptable invariant texts) is
that the license text is a legal agreement between _you_ and the
_copyright holder_.  I can not change the agreement you have with the
copyright holder, only you and she can.  If you and she change your
agreement (either by explicitly licensing under an alternative license, or
implicitly by the holder changing the license, and you agreeing to those
terms*) I have no control over that.  I can not modify someone else's
agreement.

That is why the license texts must be "invariant".

--Joe
* For example, if the work was originally released under a "non-commercial
use only" license, but is later also released under the GPL, you might
agree to the GPL's terms rather than the "non-commercial use only".

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

[Branden Robinson]

On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 02:21:24PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> But the question itself is good, because many people do have the
> impression that the "changing it is not allowed" language at the top
> of the GPL itself is the final word. This question would be an
> excellent place to refer to Brian's discovery.

/me sniffles dejectedly

But I made the same "discovery" 2 days earlier, on Tue, 22 Apr 2003
12:49:47 -0500 in Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.

/me pouts :)

-- 
G. Branden Robinson|I am sorry, but what you have
Debian GNU/Linux   |mistaken for malicious intent is
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |nothing more than sheer
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |incompetence! -- J. L. Rizzo II


pgpYfJolANLW6.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: VisualBoyAdvance license

[iain d broadfoot]

* Richard Braakman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> More disturbing is the file src/win32/wavwrite.cpp, which has the
> GPL blurb followed by this:
> 
> //-
> // File: WavWrite.cpp
> //
> // Desc: Wave file support for loading and playing Wave files using 
> DirectSound 
> //   buffers.
> //
> // Copyright (c) 1999 Microsoft Corp. All rights reserved.
> //-
> 
> I think we shouldn't get anywhere NEAR this package until it's had
> a careful license review.

agreed, but presumably we wouldn't care about the win32 chunks of code
anyway? :D

iain

-- 
wh33, y1p33 3tc.

"If sharing a thing in no way diminishes it, it is not rightly owned if it is
not shared." -St. Augustine

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

[Jeremy Hankins]

Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

>  If only we could be sure that the license on the manuals would
>  allow a user who thinks that "because!" is reason enough for
>  him, to remove the GNU Manifesto, we probably could still
>  distribute the unmidified manuals with the Invariant Section in
>  it. That would mean that part of what we distribute (namely the
>  Invariant Section itself) would not, strictly speaking, be
>  modifyable, but exceptions can be made for things that are both
>  sufficiently non-software-like not to need modifyability for
>  technical reasons and sufficienly relevant not to just
>  constitute a waste of space in the distribution.  Of course
>  both of these limits are judgement calls, and each particular
>  Invariant-But-Removable section will have to be considered on a
>  case-by-case basis.  [Hmmm.. so I think at least, but I'm not
>  sure that this is a clear d-l consensus. -HM]

I think this is definitely not the d-l consensus.  On one hand, the
benefits to be gained from a free-software-like approach to purely
artistic/aesthetic (i.e., non-functional) works aren't as obvious.
While one can imagine exceptions, it's not as useful to mix-and-match
bits of a novel into your own novel.  You don't see nearly as many
collaborative novels or paintings as programs, and I imagine that an
authors pride in a work is much more associated with the work as a
whole in the case of a novel or painting than in a program.

On the other hand, this is an extremely fuzzy distinction, there are
numerous exceptions, and bits that fall into one category will
sometimes move into another.  It seems to me that most of the
pride-in-work issue can be resolved by a license that requires
accurate attribution and changing the name (so as to make the changed
attribution perfectly clear) when modified.  Those requirements
(assuming they're done right) are pretty clearly DFSG free, I think.

So I'm sympathetic to someone who says: My work is my personal
communication with the world and it doesn't make sense to put it in a
commons.  But I don't see any reason for Debian to distribute these
folks' statements (fictional, rants, or otherwise) unless in some sort
of (semi-)official way Debian actually supports or endorses the
statement.

-- 
Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333  9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

[Anthony Towns]

On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 02:05:10PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Anthony Towns 
> > >  If only we could be sure that the license on the manuals would
> > >  allow a user who thinks that "because!" is reason enough for him,
> > >  to remove the GNU Manifesto, we probably could still distribute
> > >  the unmidified manuals with the Invariant Section in it.
> > Didn't we just say we're not making exceptions for things that are
> > "sufficiently non-software-like"?
> No, we just said that license text are sufficiently non-software-like
> to enjoy an exception.

That's not why we're doing it. We're doing it because we don't have any
choice about it.

If you're seriously arguing that things that merely being "not
software-like" is enough reason not to apply the DFSG to the GNU Manifesto
or the GPL, then you can't apply it to documentation in general. If you
want to draw a distinction between them, you need to draw a clear one,
not handwave about it.

There is a clear distinction between licenses and documentation -- one
goes in /usr/share/doc//copyright and is solely concerned about
what you can and can't do with everything else, the other goes anywhere
but in /usr/share/doc//copyright.

> > >   Of course both of these limits are
> > >  judgement calls, and each particular Invariant-But-Removable
> > >  section will have to be considered on a case-by-case basis.
> > And further, as a practical matter, it's not reasonable for us to be
> > making judgement calls on every random piece of documentation that
> > gets uploaded.
> A packager already has to make a lot of judgement calls when he
> packages something. 

It's not the packager that makes the judgement call as to what's
allowable -- it's ftpmaster and -legal. Packagers simply aren't able to
make reliable judgement calls as to what is and isn't DFSG-free in the
general case.

(And this is why I don't think "me too" posts are particularly relevant
as to establishing "consensus")

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

  ``Dear Anthony Towns: [...] Congratulations -- 
you are now certified as a Red Hat Certified Engineer!''


pgpgxicc8EJ1u.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: question about moral rights

[James Miller]

 --- Thomas Uwe Gruettmueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> からの
メッセージ：
> Hi Mark,
> On Thursday 24 April 2003 19:37, Mark Rafn wrote:
> > A few people have brought up the topic of Moral
> Rights, with
> > which I am not very familiar.  They sound like
> some sort of
> > meta-copyright which an author cannot assign, and
> may not be
> > able to grant permission over.
> >
> > Does anyone have a pointer to some description of
> these rights
> > that a layman like myself might understand?  I'm
> particularly
> > interested in how they relate to the GFDL and why
> they would
> > apply to documentation and not to software.
> 
> * * * IANAL * * *

** This is not legal advice.  This is a general statement
of law. **

I've reviewed this issue a couple years ago in an article
format (which is I think approachable to a layman, but it
is a law review piece so no promises.. :)

Whether documentation and software are treated differently
for moral rights will depend on the jurisdiction. 
Remember, though, that moral rights is a continental
tradition, that was not recognized in common law
jurisdictions generally.  Might be of interest for
example, that the U.S. signed on to Berne finally, and
basically said, "uh, we're already protecting moral
rights... sortof... so we need not change our domestic
law."

Software is generally treated differently though and I
reference a variety of sources that give a country by
country analysis.  I focused on Japan, U.S., and others.

In the paper, I advocated an assertion of a moral right in
software for free and open source developers, because of
the strong nexus between the rights sought, eg. right to
attribution and integrity of the work, and the lack of
much nexus between the rights generally afforded under
copyright.  I argued that for someone more interested in
"protecting" their work for public interest'y reason,
using a regime based on the moralistic rights of an author
makes better sense than one focused on maximized economic
utility.

The article provides several cites for further research,
but I'd be happy to discuss the topic more here.  I should
revisit that article so comments are very welcomed.

http://www.nihonlinks.com/JamesMiller/OpenSourceMoralRights/
http://www.nihonlinks.com/JamesMiller/OpenSourceMoralRights/CurrentDraft.pdf


--
James Miller
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


__
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! BB is Broadband by Yahoo!
http://bb.yahoo.co.jp/

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

[Henning Makholm]

Scripsit "Joe Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Henning Makholm said:

> > Perhaps the O.A.C. ought to be our next target, but let us fight one
> > battle at a time.

> EXPN O.A.C.?

Obnoxious Advertising Clause.

-- 
Henning Makholm "However, the fact that the utterance by
   Epimenides of that false sentence could imply the
   existence of some Cretan who is not a liar is rather unsettling."

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

[Henning Makholm]

Scripsit Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Anthony Towns wrote:

> > What About Unmodifiable Software Licenses Like the GNU GPL?

> >Many software licenses unfortunately disallow the creation ofderivative
> >works. The FSF give everyone permission to distribute verbatim
> >copies of the GPL, eg, but do not give you permission to take the

> Apparently they do allow it, according to Brian T. Sniffen who points out
> http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifyGPL
> If the license portion of the GPL can indeed be reused and modified then it
> is a bad example to use here.

But the question itself is good, because many people do have the
impression that the "changing it is not allowed" language at the top
of the GPL itself is the final word. This question would be an
excellent place to refer to Brian's discovery.

And one notices that the original reasoning still applies to the
GPL's Preamble, which seems to be explicitly non-reuseable.

> > Beyond allowing invariant sections, why does the GNU FDL suck?

> A little peice of me wonders if "why does the GNU FDL suck" is politic
> even in a FAQ, but whatever.

I think this is covered by the Draft Status Warning at the beginning
of the FAQ. In the production version, let us chage it to "what else
is bad about the GNU FDL?".

-- 
Henning Makholm   "... popping pussies into pies
  Wouldn't do in my shop
just the thought of it's enough to make you sick
   and I'm telling you them pussy cats is quick ..."

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

[Henning Makholm]

Scripsit Anthony Towns 

> >  If only we could be sure that the license on the manuals would
> >  allow a user who thinks that "because!" is reason enough for him,
> >  to remove the GNU Manifesto, we probably could still distribute
> >  the unmidified manuals with the Invariant Section in it.

> Didn't we just say we're not making exceptions for things that are
> "sufficiently non-software-like"?

No, we just said that license text are sufficiently non-software-like
to enjoy an exception.

> >   Of course both of these limits are
> >  judgement calls, and each particular Invariant-But-Removable
> >  section will have to be considered on a case-by-case basis.

> And further, as a practical matter, it's not reasonable for us to be
> making judgement calls on every random piece of documentation that
> gets uploaded.

A packager already has to make a lot of judgement calls when he
packages something. Deciding which parts of the documentation is
relevant and up-to-date to include in the binary package is already
one of them.

-- 
Henning Makholm  "Gå ud i solen eller regnen, smil, køb en ny trøje,
   slå en sludder af med købmanden, puds dine støvler. Lev!"

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Fri, 25 Apr 2003 04:57:36 +0200, Thomas Uwe Gruettmueller <[EMAIL 
PROTECTED]> said: 

> On the other hand, the DFSGly non-free docs that are about to be
> thrown out of main are at least as freely distributable as any other
> package in main. This is a quality that many packages in non-free do
> not share with them. As I don't have non-free in my
> apt/sources.list, from my point of view, moving these docs to the
> 'non-free' section would practically mean the same thing as moving
> them to the trash dump. I guess this step would be far too radical.

> * Create a section 'distributable' that is between main and
>non-free, for stuff that is not free WRT modification,
>availability of the source code etc., but at least freely
>distributable in any medium, by anybody, for any price.

Why are we special casing invariant sections? There are
 packages in main that are freely distributable in any medium, by
 anybody, and can be modified, but not for commercial distribution --
 arguably, these are as free as anything else, since you can't even
 ask for money for them. Yet they are non-free (angband is one such
 package, if you are looking for examples). 

It seems to me that we have a well established tradition of
 deeming so-called freely-distributable-but-not-dfsg-free packages,
 and relegating them to non-free, and people like me who like tp play
 rogue-like games but prefer free software have to add non-free to our
 sources lists for ever.

I am not finding this line of argument compelling.

manoj
-- 
Many books require no thought from those who read them, for a very
simple reason--they made no such demand upon those who wrote them.
Those works, therefore, are the most valuable that set our thinking
faculties in the fullest operation.  -- Colton
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

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

[Anthony Towns]

On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 03:00:00PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> The difference between Office and Invariants is (if I understand the licence
> correctly) that Invariant sections can't be large chunks of the manual -
> only so-called "secondary sections".  

So, if I make a Debian system that includes a single non-free program, the
entire system -- including the non-free program -- is DFSG-free, because the
non-free program can be removed?

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

  ``Dear Anthony Towns: [...] Congratulations -- 
you are now certified as a Red Hat Certified Engineer!''


pgp7aOrN2h7t0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

[Matthew Palmer]

On Fri, 25 Apr 2003, Anthony Towns wrote:

> If we are willing to accept invariant chapters in DFSG-free
> documentation, I don't see how we could possibly claim the GNU FDL is not
> DFSG-free. Merely being able to delete something doesn't make it free --
> I can delete MS Office easily enough, eg.
> 
> In short, I don't think that's a justifiable position.

The difference between Office and Invariants is (if I understand the licence
correctly) that Invariant sections can't be large chunks of the manual -
only so-called "secondary sections".  It's merely just extending the
unmodifiability from the copyright notice itself to other ephemeral parts of
the documentation, while keeping the meat of the document flexible.

I don't think Invariant sections are a good idea because if one small part
of them is out-of-date (for instance the project website in a section on
"Getting the Software") you can't just update the address.  Why someone
would make a section "Getting the Software" invariant is beyond me, but it
would probably fit in the definition of a "Secondary Section", so someone
somewhere would probably mark it as invariant through lack of knowledge.  At
least being able to remove an invariant section and replacing it with
something equivalent solves that problem.  I still don't like them, though.

> >  What we do want is for our *users* to be allowed to remove the
> >  GNU Manifesto from the manual if they can think of a reason to do
> >  so.
> 
> No -- we want our users to be able to take everything we give them, and
> be able to build on any part of it they might choose, with few exceptions.

Being able to remove an invariant secondary section wholesale allows the
user to build on the meat of the document without having to put all of the
invariant sections into their derived documentation if it doesn't fit (see
"The Reference Card" example for why this is needed).

> >  If only we could be sure that the license on the manuals would
> >  allow a user who thinks that "because!" is reason enough for him,
> >  to remove the GNU Manifesto, we probably could still distribute
> >  the unmidified manuals with the Invariant Section in it. That
> >  would mean that part of what we distribute (namely the Invariant
> >  Section itself) would not, strictly speaking, be modifyable, but
> >  exceptions can be made for things that are both sufficiently
> >  non-software-like not to need modifyability for technical reasons
> >  and sufficienly relevant not to just constitute a waste of space
> >  in the distribution.
> 
> Didn't we just say we're not making exceptions for things that are
> "sufficiently non-software-like"?

I didn't read that anywhere (though I may have missed it).  Since we're
allowing non-modifyable licence texts (which I think everyone would agree is
a given, and IIRC may be a legal requirement) allowing invariance on other
things which do not affect the "operability" of the documentation/software
doesn't seem like an overly huge problem.  Defining "operability" in the
realm of documentation would be the stumbling block.


-- 
---
#include 
Matthew Palmer, Geek In Residence
http://ieee.uow.edu.au/~mjp16

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

[Anthony Towns]

On Thu, Apr 24, 2003 at 06:20:27PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> instead of a document
> like this one that warns about and criticises the FDL, perhaps Debian
> should issue a more general statement along the lines of: We have
> decided documentation in Debian must comply with the DFSG, and this will
> entail throwing the following documents out of the distribution, and
> certian licenses (FDL etc) are causing problems in this task. Just an
> idea and I don't feel like writing it myself, but it might be less
> inflammatory.

I think we probably need this too, but it can't be instead of a thing
about the FDL, since otherwise we'd just get "But the GNU FDL's a free
license -- it says so right in the name -- why're you throwing stuff
licensed under it out?"

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

  ``Dear Anthony Towns: [...] Congratulations -- 
you are now certified as a Red Hat Certified Engineer!''


pgpK223VZjOXS.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

[Matthew Palmer]

On 24 Apr 2003, Henning Makholm wrote:

> > Given the GNU Projects influence on Debian, shouldn't the GNU Manifesto
> > be included in the Debian GNU/Linux Distribution anyway?
> 
> I propose expanding this question to:
> 
>Why does Debian want to remove (say) the GNU Manifesto from the
>manuals? Do you want to suppress Stallman's views and just benefit
>from the software he created?

[Answer snipped]



For what it's worth, I think this should go in pretty much unaltered (except
for a typo fix: "Changes to the software they get *from* us", line 8, para
2).  It treads the line between "rah, rah, we love Stallman" and "Stallman
sucks" quite well.


-- 
---
#include 
Matthew Palmer, Geek In Residence
http://ieee.uow.edu.au/~mjp16