Re: [OT] Droit d'auteur vs. free software?
On Sun, May 18, 2003 at 08:21:18PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In the US, I could mutilate your work, but I couldn't pass it off as yours (that would be misrepresentation, possibly fraud). If you were alive, I couldn't distort it to give you a bad reputation: that would be libel or slander, depending. (Dead people have no right to defend their reputations in the US.) I think I've figured out what's really going on with Duchamp. The French think Duchamp can mutilate the Mona Lisa because he's French, and Da Vinci is Italian. Hey, wait, I thought only the Americans, British, and Germans were nationalistic chauvinists. /me coughs while people forget the etymology of chauvinism -- 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/ | pgpdiWzKmX6hi.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [OT] Droit d'auteur vs. free software?
On Sun, May 18, 2003 at 04:25:34PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: Branden mentioned: In the U.K., truth is not a defense to libel. It's my understanding that it *is* a defense in the U.S. In fact, I believe the burden of proof in the US is on the plaintiff to *prove* that the alleged 'libel' is false. So, when an American sues for libel in the U.K., it's a smoking gun that the libellous statements are in fact true. Hrrrm? When an American sues in the UK? A smoking gun for whose side? Make up your own mind... http://daily.nysun.com/Repository/getFiles.asp?Style=OliveXLib:ArticleToMailType=text/htmlPath=NYS/2003/03/12ID=Ar00200 -- G. Branden Robinson| Don't use nuclear weapons to Debian GNU/Linux | troubleshoot faults. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- US Air Force Instruction 91-111 http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgpm923Qf2fHp.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: The debate on Invariant sections (long)
On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 09:37:31AM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote: What is the best way to convince GNU people to change their licenses? (without being pissed of, that is). I'm not sure GNU people need to be convinced. The only person I know of who has come out in vigorous defense of the GNU FDL is Richard Stallman. -- G. Branden Robinson| There is no gravity in space. Debian GNU/Linux | Then how could astronauts walk [EMAIL PROTECTED] | around on the Moon? http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | Because they wore heavy boots. pgpcVtgIptKuR.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: The debate on Invariant sections (long)
On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 10:54:36AM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote: Not consistently. The GNU FDL is a licensing initiative that is apparently intended to be used for all FSF documentation. The traditional GNU documentation license did not always include Invariant Sections. In the past, some of our manuals included invariant sections and some did not. Today that is still the case. However, in the past we needed an ad hoc license to have invariant sections. What changed with the GFDL is that it is a single license that covers both cases. The GNU FDL does more than that. There are freedoms people could exercise under the traditional GNU documentation license that people can no longer exercise, even in the absence of Invariant Sections. For instance, the traditional GNU documentation license doesn't say anything about Endorsements, Acknowledgements, Dedications, or special actions that must be taken in the event of copying in quantity. You did not offer very specific rebuttals to any Debian forum of which I'm aware.[2] Arguing with you is not useful. You make many pedantic attacks about minor points. See above for one example; here's a second, from the same message: Could you offer me some criteria for evaluating the terms pedantic and minor? I take freedom very seriously; I do not regard it as a minor issue, nor do I regard disagreements over its exercise as pedantic in general. Also, I admit to distress at your characterization of my questions as attacks. If I have given personal offense, I apologize, and I'd like to know what I can alter in the tone of my messages to stop doing so. I trust that you do not consider a critical analysis of the GNU Free Documentation License as ipso facto an attack, whether on the FSF or you personally. [RMS said:] We want to encourage widespread use of the FDL for two reasons: 1. It leads to a pool of text that can be copied between manuals. 2. It is (or at least ought to be) good for helping commercial publishers succeed publishing free manuals. I do not understand how the traditional GNU documentation license, without their proto-invariant sections, does not achieve either of the above goals. Those are our goals for wanting the GNU FDL to be widely used, but those are not our only goals in choosing licenses for our manuals. What are the other goals? I could respond to all of these pedantic attacks, but it isn't useful. You can always make more of them. You have more time for this than I do. So I decided to spend my time on other things. If you'd enumerate more of the motivations behind the GNU FDL, it might help to better establish the parameters of the discussion. Furthermore, it is possible that some authors of free documentation do not share these as-yet-unstated goals of the FSF. Therefore it might not be a good idea for those authors to adopt the GNU FDL, since to do so might work in furtherance of goals not in their interests. I think it is unwise for authors to adopt software licenses in ignorance, so please tell the community what goals beyond the above two you see the GNU FDL as promoting. You raised one point that I am concerned about: * Debugging with GDB; GDB version 5 May 2000[1] [1] This manual is an interesting case because it started out with no invariant sections at all, but later adopted the GNU FDL and marked non-Secondary Sections as Invariant[3], which RMS said was not permitted[4]. I will investigate this, and if a non-Secondary section has indeed been marked as invariant, I will make sure that is corrected. Is the FSF willing to dual-license manuals that previously had no invariant sections at all, such as _Debugging with GDB_, under the GNU FDL and the traditional GNU documentation license simultaneously? Finally, would you consider a manual that used the GNU FDL -- or claimed to do so -- which marked a non-Secondary Section as Invariant to be Free as in freedom? -- G. Branden Robinson| One doesn't have a sense of humor. Debian GNU/Linux | It has you. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Larry Gelbart http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgp3i4VV0PGI4.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: The debate on Invariant sections (long)
On Sun, May 18, 2003 at 04:56:17PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: When some popular enough software becomes non-free, there is very often a free fork which gets maintained. If that happens to some non-free documentation as well, that's fine, but I don't think you will find many volunteers to do that. I'd do it for GCC. Unfortunately, there's no clearly free version of the manual which is even remotely recent, so I'd actually have to write it from scratch, which I'm not up to doing. Actually... given that several GCC contributors aren't happy with the GFDL and invariant sections, maybe we could add up all the parts *we* contributed (since the copyright assignment agreement still gives us the right to use our own works) and see what it adds up to. I wholeheartedly encourage you in this endeavor. Please let me know if there is anything I can do to help. -- G. Branden Robinson|Fair use is irrelevant and Debian GNU/Linux |improper. [EMAIL PROTECTED] |-- Asst. U.S. Attorney Scott http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |Frewing, explaining the DMCA pgp0vCP9KRauD.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: DFSG analysis of default LDP license
On Sat, May 17, 2003 at 01:52:57AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: On Tue, 2003-05-13 at 02:41, Branden Robinson wrote: Colin Watson helpfully provided this information in a recent mail: 4. The location of the original unmodified document be identified. I feel that this clause might be problematic in a way that clauses 1, 2, and 3 would not be, in that the information in 1, 2, and 3 cannot become false over time. First, it doesn't have to be a network location. So I think we could distribute as original + patches; the location we'd point to would be the .orig file in the pool. Uh, the pool *is* a network location. Or at the very least, it's not something on the installed system. 5) applicable, non-redundant disclaimers of endorsement [3] That's not compelled speech --- I can always remove it (and often have to, if I change the document) if I disapprove of it. You didn't read what I said or follow the link, apparently. I said *disclaimers* of endorsement. BECAUSE THE CONTENT OF THE WORK IS FREELY MODIFIABLE BY ALL THIRD PARTIES, THERE IS NO WARRANTY THAT ANY REPRESENTATIONS MADE WITH IN ARE MADE BY, ON BEHALF OF, OR WITH THE CONSENT OF THE AUTHOR(S) OR COPYRIGHT HOLDER(S). ANY STATEMENTS MADE WITHIN THE WORK ARE NOT NECESSARILY HELD, SHARED, OR ENDORSED BY THE AUTHOR(S) OR COPYRIGHT HOLDER(S). Like that. Surely that must stay in just as warranty disclaimers must, and for similar reasons, no? Endorsement statements themselves must be severable, and indeed serve little purpose if they aren't, and the work is otherwise modifiable. (Sure, I'll endorse ANYTHING!) I recommend dropping this clause. 5. The original author's (or authors') name(s) may not be used to assert or imply endorsement of the resulting document without the original author's (or authors') permission. I don't think it's so critical it be dropped; I think it just restates what the law already does. If modified a work to include hateful propaganda, and didn't make it clear that is not the original author's opinion, I'd be in trouble for defamation. I didn't say it was critical. I'm just identifying a way I think the license can be approved. As I said in my reply to Joey Hess, the BUGs I identified are gray areas, not flagrant violations of the DFSG. But I like clearing up gray areas where possible, because lawyers who write licenses tend to use every square in of gray area as an excuse to write a license clause that takes a square mile. E.g., (36pt) Some Document [ illustration, blank space, whatever ] (16pt) by J. Hacker (9pt) with modifications by others and then putting all those others in the full copyright statement in 8pt type is likely to still be defamation. I'm not really in a position to opine on defamation law, and furthermore I don't find it very relevant to the default LDP license, which doesn't even raise the issue. I think your remark here would be better placed in the droit d'auteur thread. BECAUSE THE CONTENT OF THE WORK IS FREELY MODIFIABLE BY ALL THIRD PARTIES, THERE IS NO WARRANTY THAT ANY REPRESENTATIONS MADE WITH IN ARE MADE BY, ON BEHALF OF, OR WITH THE CONSENT OF THE AUTHOR(S) OR COPYRIGHT HOLDER(S). ANY STATEMENTS MADE WITHIN THE WORK ARE NOT NECESSARILY HELD, SHARED, OR ENDORSED BY THE AUTHOR(S) OR COPYRIGHT HOLDER(S). Not many end-users of a published book will read that. So what? Copyright cartels and shrink-wrap license freaks have been arguing successfully for years in U.S. courts that ignorance of the fine print is no excuse. So, either your point is irrelevant (in the U.S.), or we might get to enjoy the spectacle of the aforementioned special interests reversing themselves someday. It won't much save someone's reputation. The only way this works is if its very close to the places where the authors' names are mentioned. How can you possibly know this? Why is putting this material where the disclaimers of warranty go insufficient? Point me to some case law supporting you assertions about what is and is not a sufficient means to avoid a defamation suit. -- G. Branden Robinson|I have a truly elegant proof of the Debian GNU/Linux |above, but it is too long to fit [EMAIL PROTECTED] |into this .signature file. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgplJMNb1seQe.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: new-maintainer vs patents.
That's not so beyond: you should be shure that the package you are building is compliant to our DFSG and that is not violating any patent or copyright. That mean you should inspect any file in the source. And I should cross-reference every line in the source against every existing patent. Where can I find a list of such patents? Have you got some method of checking which patents are relevant? For example, there exist a patent for 'accessing computers remotely', I can't possibly find relevance by looking at every file in the source, but by looking at bigger picture it's obvious that i am violating such patent by using ssh or telnet or rssh ( and also by using infrared keyboard ). This means that I have to understand every existing patent quite intimately, and also it means that I have to understand every single algorithm used in my package. I won't be able to do that in my lifetime. How did you go about locating patents relevant to your packages? Are there some techniques, automated tools that could make this doable? about locating software patents in every country that uses such patents? Uploading to non-us is not a solution. You should contact and work with the author. Author of patent? -- Dariush Pietrzak, She swore and she cursed, that she never would deceive me Key fingerprint = 40D0 9FFB 9939 7320 8294 05E0 BCC7 02C4 75CC 50D9
Re: [Resolution of] Re: Maxima: Difficult US export restriction issue
On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 01:14:44PM +1200, Adam Warner wrote: Dave Turner, the FSF's ``GPL Compliance Engineer'' suggests including the DOE text in the SAME FILE as the GPL will be sufficient to honour the DOE's requirement while also not modifying the GPL. The text should note that it is not part of the licence. Thanks a lot for researching and getting a resolution on this that the FSF is happy with. This issue is likely to come up again. -- G. Branden Robinson| Suffer before God and ye shall be Debian GNU/Linux | redeemed. God loves us, so He [EMAIL PROTECTED] | makes us suffer Christianity. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Aaron Dunsmore pgpsG6kYikQME.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Is this license DFSG-free?
On Sat, May 17, 2003 at 03:22:27AM +0200, Nicolas Kratz wrote: On Sat, May 17, 2003 at 12:22:31PM +1200, Adam Warner wrote: There is a very simple rule of thumb you haven't grokked: If you haven't been granted the permission to do something covered by copyright law in the licence then you don't have that permission. Once you realise this it will be easy to identify some licenses as not being DFSG-free. Cha-CHING! Thanks a whole lot, that was indeed an important - and missing - piece of the puzzle. So, unless I can persuade the copyright holder to relicense, no go. In my opinion Adam Warner overstated the case a little bit, though. The scope of copyright law is not defined as all human activity. Strictly speaking, in the U.S. anyway, it is pretty much limited to the distribution of copies (copy-right) of an original, creative work, whether in its original form or a modified version (which may be a derivative work). That said, many jurisdictions in the world, and many copyright cartel lobbying groups, tend to interpret copyright law as forbidding modification of works even for private purposes (no more highlighting your textbooks or watching that DVD in a Linux-based computer!), and also tend to regard possession of self-made copies of the work in quantity as a priori evidence of intend to distribute infringing materials (want to make two archival copies instead of one -- go directly to jail!). -- G. Branden Robinson| We either learn from history or, Debian GNU/Linux | uh, well, something bad will [EMAIL PROTECTED] | happen. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Bob Church pgponayRZlFRC.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: new-maintainer vs patents.
On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 09:39:22AM +0200, Dariush Pietrzak wrote: copyright. That mean you should inspect any file in the source. And I should cross-reference every line in the source against every existing patent. [...] What are you trying to do with this mail? haven't you seen the replies from other developers pointing out my errors and misunderstandings? ... -- Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis | Elegant or ugly code as well aliases: Luca ^De [A-Z][A-Za-z\-]*[iy]'\?s$ | as fine or rude sentences have Luca, a wannabe ``Good guy''. | something in common: they local LANG=[EMAIL PROTECTED] | don't depend on the language.
Re: [OT] Droit d'auteur vs. free software
On Sun, May 18, 2003 at 04:40:01PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: Yes, which is why European copyright law is fundamentally opposed to free speech. There isn't harmony among all European jurisdictions in matters of copyright, so this statement seems overbroad. This basis for copyright is expressly forbidden by the United States Constitution, despite some abusive laws and court rulings recently. I think this is also overbroad; however, I do not think the unconstitutional development of copyright laws are a recent phenomenon. I think in theory it should be possible to construct a scheme for copyrights and patents that would not run afoul of the First Amendment, for instance through mandatory licensing and mechanical royalties rendered from producers of works designed to reap a profit. Under such an arrangement, not-for-profit organizations could publish or build anything they like without having to pay royalties to copyright or patent holders. If one sought to make a profit, though, one could share the wealth. There are other concepts which have been the basis of legal systems in the past which are also dangerous, and are also still very real and alive. What do you mean by in the past? For instance: All rights whatsoever come from the king (or government). Today: you have whatever rights are compatible with 'compelling state interests'.[1] As opposed to People are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. The Delcaration of Independence is not binding upon anyone even in theory, and is used by the U.S. government for toilet paper just as the Bill of Rights is. For another instance: Some people are obviously inferior to others, and should be treated so by the legal system. Indeed. Some people are enemy combatants, not entitled to any rights whatsoever, even when they haven't been convicted of -- or even charged with -- a crime.[2] For another instance: Criticizing the government obviously means that you are disloyal and treasonous. Yup.[3] Under the US system as envisioned by the Founders, some rights may be natural (such as the right to be identified as the author or not), but copyright, which can be used to *suppress* speech, is *not* natural; it is an artificial government-granted right. Well, whatever we have in the U.S. today, it ain't what was envisioned by the Founders. [1] http://www.thrf.org/cases/Lawrence.htm [2] http://cnss.gwu.edu/~cnss/combatants.htm [3] http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010926-5.html -- G. Branden Robinson|You can have my PGP passphrase when Debian GNU/Linux |you pry it from my cold, dead [EMAIL PROTECTED] |brain. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |-- Adam Thornton pgpAYep5xDnaK.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: new-maintainer vs patents.
On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 12:56:38PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote: Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis wrote: Is there some policy about which patents do we ignore and which do we respect? We do not ignore any patent. Who is Branden supposed to send the royalty checks for patent #4,197,590 to again? (That's the XOR cursor patent.) Huh? What? XOR cursor? What's that? Hint: do not reply to this message. :-P -- G. Branden Robinson|You can have my PGP passphrase when Debian GNU/Linux |you pry it from my cold, dead [EMAIL PROTECTED] |brain. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |-- Adam Thornton pgpplO4URfdoX.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Is this license DFSG-free?
On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 02:35:15AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: Please do not discourage people from using this list for one of its intended purposes. If I can be discouraged from posting by a well-deserved smack, I don't belong here. If you feel this person should not have passed the New-Maintainer process with such ignorance of licensing, I think the fault lies more with his Account Manager than with him. As said in the first post, I haven not even started the NM process. No need to look for some sloppy AM to burn on the stake. }:) Cheers, Nick -- x--x | Never touch a running sysop. | |--| | Nicolas Kratz [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] | x--x pgpe9yjmlCa2A.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Is this license DFSG-free?
Hi Branden Robinson, On Sat, May 17, 2003 at 03:22:27AM +0200, Nicolas Kratz wrote: On Sat, May 17, 2003 at 12:22:31PM +1200, Adam Warner wrote: There is a very simple rule of thumb you haven't grokked: If you haven't been granted the permission to do something covered by copyright law in the licence then you don't have that permission. Once you realise this it will be easy to identify some licenses as not being DFSG-free. Cha-CHING! Thanks a whole lot, that was indeed an important - and missing - piece of the puzzle. So, unless I can persuade the copyright holder to relicense, no go. In my opinion Adam Warner overstated the case a little bit, though. The scope of copyright law is not defined as all human activity. Strictly speaking, in the U.S. anyway, it is pretty much limited to the distribution of copies (copy-right) of an original, creative work, whether in its original form or a modified version (which may be a derivative work). That said, many jurisdictions in the world, and many copyright cartel lobbying groups, tend to interpret copyright law as forbidding modification of works even for private purposes (no more highlighting your textbooks or watching that DVD in a Linux-based computer!), and also tend to regard possession of self-made copies of the work in quantity as a priori evidence of intend to distribute infringing materials (want to make two archival copies instead of one -- go directly to jail!). This is a good clarification. However if you recheck what I wrote above you'll see I specifically mentioned permission to do something covered by copyright law. I had in mind the activities covered by copyright law like distribution of copies, derived works, etc. Regards, Adam
Re: PHP-Nuke License Conclusion?
On Tue, May 13, 2003 at 02:35:05PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote: Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Tue, May 13, 2003 at 06:46:31AM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote: Digging in the archives turns up that it has not always been you who made the false claim that GPL+more restrictions is necessarily internally inconsistent. I apologize for implying that. Calling it a false claim is overreaching given that you've never actually constructed an argument illustrating its falsity. I wonder how the arguments I pointed to came into being, then, if I did not construct them. Which arguments? You keep saying they exist, and keep failing to cite them, whether by reference or inclusion. Okay, so you and Nick Phillips will cotton to the GNU GPL being a variable rather than a constant, Strawman. How so? You and Nick are claiming that the terms and conditions of the GNU GPL as applied to a work are not always the literal text of what lies between TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION and END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS, aren't you? Thus, the terms and conditions -- even in written form -- of the GNU GPL as applied to a given work can vary, even when the written text between TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION and END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS does not in fact change. Your only point seems to be that *sometimes* the description of such almost-but-not-quite-GPL licensing terms is phrased in unclear and possibly inconsistent ways. No, that's an incidental problem. My point is that whatever a license is that is the GNU GPL plus additional restrictions (consistent or not), it isn't the GNU GPL. This in no way entails that *every* set of almost-but-not-quite-GPL licensing terms must be unclear and inconsistent. Where the set includes restrictions on activity not enumerated between TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION and END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS, that's correct. This is because the text of the GNU GPL is self-referential, and talks about these terms and conditions (clause 6). [I have asserted that the way most people add restrictions to the GNU GPL] -- at least in cases that have come to my attention via the debian-legal list -- results in a license that is internally inconsistent, and thus impossible to satisfy while exercising one's traditional freedoms with a copyleft. Even here, you seem to argue that because the way most people add restrictions is wrong, and often internally inconsistent - which I do not deny, mind you - it is impossible to add restrictions. If they were to modify the GPL text, they could achieve what they desire in a (potentially) self-consistent way. Most people don't bother to do this. Observation One --- The scope of the terms and conditions, a.k.a. restrictions, is clearly defined by the text of the GNU GPL. Any restrictions beyond that are forbidden by section six. Section six has absolutely no power over how an individual, sole, author may or may not chose to license his work. What the author chooses and what he manages to express are not always in consistent harmony. Copyright licensees are bound first and foremost by the licensor's explicit terms and conditions. Licensees who operate under a gentlemen's agreement with the licensor in which they violate the literal terms of the license do so at their own peril. I do not think the Debian Project should encourage its users to assume that they are the beneficiaries of a gentlemen's agreement with the licensor, when no such agreement was actually formed. It is obvious to me that THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS is meant to refer to the text between TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION and END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS. No. Well, then, I suspect we have an unbridgeable gulf here. On the contrary, it is obvious that if an author knowingly and explicitly licenses is work under the conditions of the GNU GPL, with the following additional restrictions: [bla bla], then the author intends every occurence of THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS to refer to his entire combined license conditions. You're drawing an inference. It is not obvious. When an author uses the GNU GPL, he is speaking with his own voice, not the Free Software Foundation's. When an author says to me: Copyright 2003 Joe Blow. TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION 1) You can do foo. 2) You can do bar. 3) You can do baz. 4) Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third
Re: Bug#189164: libdbd-mysql-perl uses GPL lib, may be used by GPL-incompatible apps
On Thu, May 08, 2003 at 01:04:08PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: I am specifically addressing the case where: [...] I'm afraid I cannot come up with very much to add to your analysis. I am uncomfortable with some of the ramifications but I am also uncomfortable with totally declawing the GNU GPL by adopting and interpretation of it that would let people wrapper and language-bind their way out of the copyleft commons. Is it any help to cite the libreadline/libeditline case? Readline is a GPLed library authored by the FSF. Editline is a BSD-licensed clone (with a limited feature set) developed by people who weren't happy with Readline's licensing. I think it's an interesting case to consider because of the question of whether an interface is copyrightable, but I think that discussion is best left for another thread. In any case, I believe the generic interface defense is only applicable when the distributor is not distributing a combination that requires selecting one specific implementation as the default. I am not sure the U.S. courts agree.[1][2] Also worthy of note are the opinions of RMS himself[3]. However, it's possible that RMS feels that only visual interfaces should not be protectable by copyright, and programming interfaces should be. To restate: If distributing a statically-linked binary that combines a GPL library with GPL-incompatible code is a violation of the GPL, then shipping *any other combination of files* which constitute a program that, when run, result in a corresponding intermingling of GPL and GPL-incompatible code in memory is also a violation of the GPL. You cannot circumvent the GPL's requirements on source code by shipping your combined work in the form of a GPLed library and a GPL-incompatible program; nor can you circumvent them by writing (or reusing) a GPL interpreter and shipping it together with the GPLed library and your GPL-incompatible script (bytecode). (I'm going to ignore the much hairier RPC question for the moment. :) Because the two libraries are interface-compatible, the FSF is not in a position to forbid people from distributing code that links against libreadline if that code is not licensed GPL-compatibly, because the code could be linked against libeditline instead.[1] Yes, but they are in a position to forbid distributing such code together with readline itself. I hate to say this because I love my bright-line tests, but I think intent matters here. Shipping such code together with readline itself, and nothing else, should be distinguishable from what Debian does, which is ship such code, readline itself, a clone or two of readline, and a whole boatload of other stuff that has nothing to do with any of the above. [1] Apple Computer v. Microsoft Corp., 35 F.3d 1435, 1446-47 (9th Cir. 1994) [2] Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Borland Int'l, 49 F.3d 807, 815 (1st Cir. 1995). [3] http://lpf.ai.mit.edu/Links/prep.ai.mit.edu/demo.final.release -- G. Branden Robinson| The only way to get rid of a Debian GNU/Linux | temptation is to yield to it. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Oscar Wilde http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgpAsPb3vSbU7.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: new-maintainer vs patents.
What are you trying to do with this mail? haven't you seen the replies from other developers pointing out my errors and misunderstandings? I wrote it before I read them, sorry. Anyhoo, I'm still trying to get a reply to my original mail. -- Dariush Pietrzak, She swore and she cursed, that she never would deceive me Key fingerprint = 40D0 9FFB 9939 7320 8294 05E0 BCC7 02C4 75CC 50D9
Re: [Resolution of] Re: Maxima: Difficult US export restriction issue
On Tue, 2003-05-20 at 19:42, Branden Robinson wrote: On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 01:14:44PM +1200, Adam Warner wrote: Dave Turner, the FSF's ``GPL Compliance Engineer'' suggests including the DOE text in the SAME FILE as the GPL will be sufficient to honour the DOE's requirement while also not modifying the GPL. The text should note that it is not part of the licence. Thanks a lot for researching and getting a resolution on this that the FSF is happy with. This issue is likely to come up again. Thanks Branden! As James Amundson (the upstream maintainer) is also happy with the outcome I've just filed bug #193976: http://bugs.debian.org/193976 Regards, Adam
Re: new-maintainer vs patents.
On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 03:16:19AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 12:56:38PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote: Who is Branden supposed to send the royalty checks for patent #4,197,590 to again? (That's the XOR cursor patent.) Huh? What? XOR cursor? What's that? I haven't read the patent (legalese gives me headaches), but I know that XOR is an abbreviation for eXclusive Overwrite Rights, a variant of DRM. It enforces an author's moral rights by not allowing non-approved cursor shapes to be used to point at protected intellectual property. When a user moves a cursor over a window containing protected content, the display manager sends the cursor shape to microsoft^W the content vendor's representative for inspection, and disallows the motion until it receives approval. This way, serious documentaries are protected from being seen with banana-shaped cursors hovering over them, and similar abuses of the content provider's reputation and artistic integrity. To the best of my knowledge, the X server still lacks this important functionality. Hint: do not reply to this message. :-P Huh? What? -- Richard Braakman to troll, v.: to explore, in an electronic forum, the subtle distinction between being an idiot and pretending to be an idiot.
Re: Is this license DFSG-free?
On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 08:27:41PM +1200, Adam Warner wrote: This is a good clarification. However if you recheck what I wrote above you'll see I specifically mentioned permission to do something covered by copyright law. I had in mind the activities covered by copyright law like distribution of copies, derived works, etc. Hmm, yup, so you did. I guess my eyes glazed over. :) I apologize for implying otherwise with my message. -- G. Branden Robinson|Optimists believe we live in the Debian GNU/Linux |best of all possible worlds. [EMAIL PROTECTED] |Pessimists are afraid the optimists http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |are right about that. pgpAdI91GcVHJ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: new-maintainer vs patents.
On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 11:27:27AM +0200, Dariush Pietrzak wrote: What are you trying to do with this mail? haven't you seen the replies from other developers pointing out my errors and misunderstandings? I wrote it before I read them, sorry. Anyhoo, I'm still trying to get a reply to my original mail. People who say anyhoo aren't welcome on this mailing list. grumble grumble grumble -- G. Branden Robinson| Debian GNU/Linux | If existence exists, [EMAIL PROTECTED] | why create a creator? http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgpzRHOZxzveE.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: new-maintainer vs patents.
On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 02:03:10PM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote: On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 03:16:19AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: Huh? What? XOR cursor? What's that? I haven't read the patent (legalese gives me headaches), but I know that XOR is an abbreviation for eXclusive Overwrite Rights, a variant of DRM. It enforces an author's moral rights by not allowing non-approved cursor shapes to be used to point at protected intellectual property. When a user moves a cursor over a window containing protected content, the display manager sends the cursor shape to microsoft^W the content vendor's representative for inspection, and disallows the motion until it receives approval. This way, serious documentaries are protected from being seen with banana-shaped cursors hovering over them, and similar abuses of the content provider's reputation and artistic integrity. To the best of my knowledge, the X server still lacks this important functionality. Ah, yes, thanks for explaining this. I concur, the X server does indeed lack this functionality. Glad to see there's no problem here. /me clears throat loudly and glares at the audience -- G. Branden Robinson| Debian GNU/Linux | Music is the brandy of the damned. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- George Bernard Shaw http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgpt7v0va1cHp.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: The debate on Invariant sections (long)
En réponse à Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 09:37:31AM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote: What is the best way to convince GNU people to change their licenses? (without being pissed of, that is). I'm not sure GNU people need to be convinced. The only person I know of who has come out in vigorous defense of the GNU FDL is Richard Stallman. (Georg Greve does also agree) It seems to be. But if so, why do they seem not to try to convince him? -- Jérôme Marant
Is this license DFSG-free, part 2 - Word from upstream
Hi again. *groan* I have sent upstream a mail, explaining the nonfreeness of the software and suggesting to use GPL, BSD or Artistic License. The original answer is below. It translates to: Professor phoned author, and they say: It's OK to build on top of our work. Regard the software as absolutely freely available. Please keep us updated. Now I'm granted either all rights on the software or exactly those I had before. My understanding is that absolutely freely available has no legal meaning, while clearly showing upstreams noble intent, and we're back to square one. [ ] Right / [ ] Wrong? Or can this be construed as a license, granted to at least me personally, if not the whole world, granting me in its broadness the right to redistribute my version under a license of my choosing? Or is this insufficient wording and/or a grey area in which we don't want to venture? Cheers, Nick - upstream answer --- Hallo Herr Kratz, ich habe mich nie um die rechtliche Seite der Software gekümmert. Der damalige Student Jochen Römmler hatte dies aufgenommen. Ich habe ihn nochmals angerufen und auch er hat nichts gegen Weiterentwicklungen, etc. Daher betrachten Sie die Software als absolut frei verfügbar! Es wäre natürlich nett, wenn Sie uns über die von Ihnen durchgeführten Änderungen und Erweiterungen auf dem Laufenden hielten. Viele Grüße, Rolf Drechsler - upstream answer --- -- x--x | Never touch a running sysop. | |--| | Nicolas Kratz [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] | x--x pgpTWaeI98OYI.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [OT] Droit d'auteur vs. free software?
Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Does this clear implication extend to documentation released under a Free licence? Does this clear implication extend to literary, visual arts, or audio works released under a Free license? I'd say yes, *if* the author *voluntarily* made the software free. Your emphasis is disturbing: does the exchange of licenses involved in distributing GPL'd software derivative of other GPL'd software count as voluntary throughout Europe? Note that using the word voluntary is my own invention here; it's not a test that I know courts explicitly to use. But essentially you're right: If the modifier only uses a free license because that will give him some benefits (such as the opportunity to reuse code written by someone else) rather than because he himself believes that software should be free, then it will be harder or impossible to carry my argument through. That is, is Freedom to Modify and Distribute an essential part of the artistic character of MySQL, XEmacs, and other works which the authors would rather have proprietary, but which they can't distribute except under the GPL? I don't know. Would the authors really harder have them proprietary? If that is the case, it may be possible to convince a court that the law does not distinguish between a Big Bad Media Conglomerate the Big Bad FSF in this respect. However, since the moral rights do not prevent FSF from countersuing for massive infringement (viz. GPL #7), the likely outcome of an attempt to use moral rights to quench a derived work would be that all of XEmacs, including the original, becomes nondistributable everywhere. So the author would have to be particularly sinister or desperate to choose that way out. And I think it would be impossible for the hypothetical Evil Heirs to convince a court that such an outcome is really what the author would have liked. -- Henning Makholm Den nyttige hjemmedatamat er og forbliver en myte. Generelt kan der ikke peges på databehandlingsopgaver af en sådan størrelsesorden og af en karaktér, som berettiger forestillingerne om den nye hjemme- og husholdningsteknologi.
Re: [OT] Droit d'auteur vs. free software?
Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: No he can't. His placing Emacs under a free license, aside from his numerous writings about software freedom, clearly imply that his works have no intrinsic artistic character that could possibly be violated by any third-party modification. This is horrid. I believe quite firmly that my work has an intrinsic artistic character. Sure. But do you believe that the intrinsic artistic character it has is one that could be violated by a third-party modification? -- Henning Makholm Jeg forstår mig på at anvende sådanne midler på folks legemer, at jeg kan varme eller afkøle dem, som jeg vil, og få dem til at kaste op, hvis det er det, jeg vil, eller give afføring og meget andet af den slags.
Re: PHP-Nuke License Conclusion?
Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Tue, May 13, 2003 at 02:35:05PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote: I wonder how the arguments I pointed to came into being, then, if I did not construct them. Which arguments? The ones IN MY MESSAGE! You keep saying they exist I keep giving them. Okay, so you and Nick Phillips will cotton to the GNU GPL being a variable rather than a constant, Strawman. How so? You and Nick are claiming that the terms and conditions of the GNU GPL as applied to a work are not always the literal text of what lies between TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION and END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS, aren't you? I say that when one constructs at cut-and-paste licence, then the words this license obviously refers to the entire cut-and-paste license, regardless of from where those words entered the cut-and-paste license. Thus, the terms and conditions -- even in written form -- of the GNU GPL as applied to a given work can vary, No they can't. For at given work they always refers to the license covering that given work. No, that's an incidental problem. My point is that whatever a license is that is the GNU GPL plus additional restrictions (consistent or not), it isn't the GNU GPL. That is true. Nobody is, as far as I am aware, disagreeing with that. This is because the text of the GNU GPL is self-referential, and talks about these terms and conditions (clause 6). If one creates a new text by using the GNU GPL, the new text becomes self-referential too. It does not stay GPL-referential, because what happens when one constructs a cut-and-paste license is *textual* inclusion-by-reference. One does not include the *meaning* of the GPL; only its *text*. What the author chooses and what he manages to express are not always in consistent harmony. Copyright licensees are bound first and foremost by the licensor's explicit terms and conditions. Licensees who operate under a gentlemen's agreement with the licensor in which they violate the literal terms of the license do so at their own peril. Exactly. And when an author specifies that the work is goverened by a cut-and-paste licence, then the text of said cut-and-paste license *is* the licensor's explicit terms and conditions. On the contrary, it is obvious that if an author knowingly and explicitly licenses is work under the conditions of the GNU GPL, with the following additional restrictions: [bla bla], then the author intends every occurence of THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS to refer to his entire combined license conditions. You're drawing an inference. It is not obvious. I think it cannot be more obvious. It is the only way to give the author's utterings any sensible meaning. When an author says to me: But that is a bad example. What the author is saying to you is You can copy and distribute this work under certain conditions. To find out what those conditions are, take the GNU GPL and add to it the requirement that you can't do baz. ..then I become confused because he is simultaneously telling me I can and cannot do baz. Yes, of course, because your'e quoting a horrible way of doing it. As far as I'm concerned, this discussions is still not about is there a horrible way of doing this? but is there a valid way of doing it?. Observation Three - The FSF does not want people forking the GPL, and think that license proliferation is a bad thing. This is true, but it does nothing to argue that a fork would be internally inconsistent. And I have not made such an argument. Then I don't see why we are arguing at all? People can fork the terms and conditions of GNU GPL all they want as far as I'm concerned, but if they create a license document that is self-contradictory Since you have not made such an argument [that a cut-and-paste license is self-contradictory], then what's the point? However, in practice, most people don't do what the FSF recommends in their FAQ. They just say it's under the GPL and slap extra restrictions somewhere else -- perhaps in a README file. Which I can easily agree is internally inconsistent and may make the work undistributable. Okay. You can easily agree -- but you're not going to??? I *am* agreeing that the particular practise you describe is internally inconsistent. I do not agree that this is also the case for every *other* way of creating a (non-free) licence by adding restrictions to the GPL. But this still does not mean that adding additional restrictions is OF NECESSITY internally inconsistent. It is if they use the GNU GPL's terms and conditions as-is. I'm not talking about cases where people use the GNU GPL's terms and conditions as-is. I'm talking about cases where people *explicitly* do *not* use them as-is, but only as an expository aid for describing what they mean. The words you used were || Debian interprets this
Re: The debate on Invariant sections (long)
On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 02:28:13PM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote: En réponse à Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I'm not sure GNU people need to be convinced. The only person I know of who has come out in vigorous defense of the GNU FDL is Richard Stallman. (Georg Greve does also agree) Indeed; I forgot about him, somehow. I stand corrected. -- G. Branden Robinson| To stay young requires unceasing Debian GNU/Linux | cultivation of the ability to [EMAIL PROTECTED] | unlearn old falsehoods. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Robert Heinlein pgp1PsHNlWueU.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: The debate on Invariant sections (long)
On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 10:16:00AM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote: I'm not sure GNU people need to be convinced. The only person I know of who has come out in vigorous defense of the GNU FDL is Richard Stallman. What about the thread you started here: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200304/msg00132.html ? Georg C. F. Greve is President of the Free Software Foundation Europe. Yes, see the message I just sent. BTW, your MUA's In-Reply-To handling is broken. -- G. Branden Robinson|Humor is a rubber sword - it allows Debian GNU/Linux |you to make a point without drawing [EMAIL PROTECTED] |blood. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |-- Mary Hirsch pgpeYqRdGjF9J.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#189164: libdbd-mysql-perl uses GPL lib, may be used by GPL-incompatible apps
On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 04:15:54AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: Is it any help to cite the libreadline/libeditline case? Readline is a GPLed library authored by the FSF. Editline is a BSD-licensed clone (with a limited feature set) developed by people who weren't happy with Readline's licensing. I think it's an interesting case to consider because of the question of whether an interface is copyrightable, but I think that discussion is best left for another thread. In any case, I believe the generic interface defense is only applicable when the distributor is not distributing a combination that requires selecting one specific implementation as the default. I am not sure the U.S. courts agree.[1][2] I don't see how the cases you cite conflict with what I said. In both of the cases, IIRC, the courts found in favor of someone who duplicated a competitor's interface. This seems to support (API vs. user interface question aside) the notion that the generic interface defense *is* applicable when you aren't distributing someone else's copyrighted implementation of the generic interface. However, it does not establish a precedent for the case where you *are* distributing the plaintiff's copyrighted work which provides a given interface. Apple v. Microsoft doesn't mean Microsoft could claim MacOS no longer enjoys copyright protection just because someone cloned the UI. To restate: If distributing a statically-linked binary that combines a GPL library with GPL-incompatible code is a violation of the GPL, then shipping *any other combination of files* which constitute a program that, when run, result in a corresponding intermingling of GPL and GPL-incompatible code in memory is also a violation of the GPL. You cannot circumvent the GPL's requirements on source code by shipping your combined work in the form of a GPLed library and a GPL-incompatible program; nor can you circumvent them by writing (or reusing) a GPL interpreter and shipping it together with the GPLed library and your GPL-incompatible script (bytecode). (I'm going to ignore the much hairier RPC question for the moment. :) Because the two libraries are interface-compatible, the FSF is not in a position to forbid people from distributing code that links against libreadline if that code is not licensed GPL-compatibly, because the code could be linked against libeditline instead.[1] Yes, but they are in a position to forbid distributing such code together with readline itself. I hate to say this because I love my bright-line tests, but I think intent matters here. Shipping such code together with readline itself, and nothing else, should be distinguishable from what Debian does, which is ship such code, readline itself, a clone or two of readline, and a whole boatload of other stuff that has nothing to do with any of the above. I think references to the file name of the GPL'ed library in an application's ELF header constitute pretty damning evidence of the real intent. Your honor, the plaintiff's license is non-binding because I could have used editline instead doesn't sound like much of a defense to me. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer pgpJJBQe2gcmd.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: new-maintainer vs patents.
On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 11:27:27AM +0200, Dariush Pietrzak wrote: What are you trying to do with this mail? haven't you seen the replies from other developers pointing out my errors and misunderstandings? I wrote it before I read them, sorry. Anyhoo, I'm still trying to get a reply to my original mail. You already have. You havn't responded to an important question by Adam Warner: I've been asked to provide the list of patents that my package may/may not be possibly infriging on. What package? By whom? Who is asking for this? It's not a reasonable request; in fact, it's one that's likely to expose you to greater liability. -- Glenn Maynard
Re: [OT] Droit d'auteur vs. free software?
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: No he can't. His placing Emacs under a free license, aside from his numerous writings about software freedom, clearly imply that his works have no intrinsic artistic character that could possibly be violated by any third-party modification. This is horrid. I believe quite firmly that my work has an intrinsic artistic character. Sure. But do you believe that the intrinsic artistic character it has is one that could be violated by a third-party modification? In so far as *any* work has artistic character that can be so violated, yes. In other words, whatever kinds of violations there are for other works apply just so to the artistic value of software. Someone turning a nicely written program into a pile of spaghetti code, for example, would be just such a degradation. Thomas
Re: [OT] Droit d'auteur vs. free software?
Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) This is horrid. I believe quite firmly that my work has an intrinsic artistic character. Sure. But do you believe that the intrinsic artistic character it has is one that could be violated by a third-party modification? In so far as *any* work has artistic character that can be so violated, yes. Does that mean that you don't release your programs under a free license, or that you never thought about the license you use, or that you consider your choice of license to be severable from the artistic statement you make with your code? In other words, whatever kinds of violations there are for other works apply just so to the artistic value of software. But not, in my opinion to free software, where the freedom is an integrated part of the artistic statement being made. On the contrary, the artistic statement would often be lost if the author went on to consider his program improperly violated by third-party modification. In that case it would be the author, not the third party, who were not true to his original artistic purpose. Someone turning a nicely written program into a pile of spaghetti code, for example, would be just such a degradation. And yet, part of the artistic vision of the original work is that such a modification is permitted. -- Henning Makholm Hør, hvad er det egentlig der ikke kan blive ved med at gå?
Re: Is this license DFSG-free, part 2 - Word from upstream
Hi Nicolas Kratz, Hi again. *groan* I have sent upstream a mail, explaining the nonfreeness of the software and suggesting to use GPL, BSD or Artistic License. The original answer is below. It translates to: Professor phoned author, and they say: It's OK to build on top of our work. Regard the software as absolutely freely available. Please keep us updated. Now I'm granted either all rights on the software or exactly those I had before. My understanding is that absolutely freely available has no legal meaning, while clearly showing upstreams noble intent, and we're back to square one. [ ] Right / [ ] Wrong? Or can this be construed as a license, granted to at least me personally, if not the whole world, granting me in its broadness the right to redistribute my version under a license of my choosing? Or is this insufficient wording and/or a grey area in which we don't want to venture? It sounds insufficient (I wouldn't base my work on the software without further clarification). But the intent appears to be grant a permissive licence. Thank the author very much and ask whether he or she will clarify this absolute freedom by releasing it under the MIT License: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php (and add this notice to his or her distribution) Assuming that works, if you later want to redistribute a work derived from the software you would be able to redistribute it under a licence of your choosing because the MIT License permits you to do this. But you can't completely ignore that the code is derived from code copyright by the author since the MIT License requires The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. Note that relicensing software under a different licence that you have merely repackaged is not considered good form. Regards, Adam
Re: The debate on Invariant sections (long)
Is the FSF willing to dual-license manuals that previously had no invariant sections at all, such as _Debugging with GDB_, under the GNU FDL and the traditional GNU documentation license simultaneously? I don't see a reason to do so, but I won't absolutely rule it out. Finally, would you consider a manual that used the GNU FDL -- or claimed to do so -- which marked a non-Secondary Section as Invariant to be Free as in freedom? No, it is not free. If any GNU package contains such a manual, please send a bug report to the maintainers and CC me. (I sent mail to the GDB maintainers to inquire about the GDB manual situation, but I have not seen an answer yet.)
Re: The debate on Invariant sections (long)
In the past, some of our manuals included invariant sections and some did not. Today that is still the case. However, in the past we needed an ad hoc license to have invariant sections. What changed with the GFDL is that it is a single license that covers both cases. The GNU FDL does more than that. The GNU FDL does many other things, but you raised the issue of invariant sections, so my response focused on that issue. I therefore did not mention other points about the GFDL which are not relevant to that issue. When you criticize those omissions, you are in effect criticizing me for doing what you asked me to do. Could you offer me some criteria for evaluating the terms pedantic and minor? That would be an unnecessary digression. I used those words to make a particular point, and I think my point was clear enough. I've provided several examples of the pattern of argument I am talking about. (Two in the last message, one above, and this one.) The pattern should be clear. Another applicable term is quibbling. I'm not going to respond to the quibbles. I don't think invariant sections are wrong, and you haven't convinced me they are wrong. People have cited inconveniences, and I agree they are inconveniences, but not major ones. This is not enough to make the license non-free. I hope Debian won't adopt your views, but if it does, it won't be the first disagreement between Debian and the FSF. Debian wrote its own definition of free software which is different from ours. We also disagree about Debian's practice of distributing and recommending non-free software.
Re: The debate on Invariant sections (long)
Your message repeated over and over that you think the GFDL isn't free, but didn't even try to justify that claim. I continue to believe that the GNU FDL is a free documentation license. The key question is: is the FSF prepared to abandon its use of non-free licenses for manuals? That question is like Will you stop beating your wife? All it proves is that you are willing to sink low. I'm not going to discuss the issue with you.
Re: The debate on Invariant sections (long)
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Your message repeated over and over that you think the GFDL isn't free, but didn't even try to justify that claim. I continue to believe that the GNU FDL is a free documentation license. The key question is: is the FSF prepared to abandon its use of non-free licenses for manuals? That question is like Will you stop beating your wife? All it proves is that you are willing to sink low. I'm not going to discuss the issue with you. I think I didn't understand your position before. I was assuming that everyone thought that the invariant sections were non-free. I'm surprised that you don't think so, but I now understand it, where I didn't before. I was confused because in the free-doc.html article you say I don't believe that it is essential for people to have permission to modify all sorts of articles and books. That makes it sound like you think the right to modification isn't important: you do think it could exist, and that it's a freedom, just that it isn't important. Now you have clarified, apparently, that you think it really isn't a freedom at all. The FSF's definition of freedom includes the ability to modify. That's a crucial freedom, and it's precisely that freedom which is impinged in the case of invariant sections. Now you might say it's an unimportant freedom, in which case I am happy to explain the cases where it does raise a real barrier. I had thought you were saying that's an unimportant freedom. Now it appears that I misunderstood, and you are actually saying that's not a freedom at all. The key freedom is fourth freedom in the list of freedoms at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html. It's the freedom to improve the program. Now the problem with Invariant Sections is that they prohibit the modification of certain political statements. Right away we see the problem: the FSF has of course occasionally altered its own political statements as it sees how to word things better, or takes account of changed realities. So it is clear that such statements *do* have room for improvement. This means that it is logically possible to improve such sections: they are not already maximally perfect. So this means that an Invariant Section is something which *could* be improved, but thanks to the license, it cannot be. This is exactly the sort of thing that Freedom Four is designed to address. Consider a software author who says I want to prohibit modifications because I only want you to use this program to speak the standard protocol. You can trust me to authorize updates when the standard protocol changes. We would regard this as non-free. The author knows that updates might improve the program, but has decided that the risk of bad updates outweighs the risk of good updates, and so he prohibits them all. Similarly, the FSF's Invariant Sections prohibit all updates because of a fear that certain kinds of bad updates will happen. But Freedom Four doesn't care about this sort of risk: the whole point is that users are not subject to a copyright owner's judgments about which updates are good and bad--*even* in the case that the user and the owner completely agree. There are other kinds of improvements that can be made. One example is taking a free manual and turning it into dynamic online documentation (much like Lisp docstrings). The rules now force the entire invariant section to be distributed anytime even a single docstring is distributed which was copied from that manual. As the above mentioned URL says: Being free to do these things means that you do not have to ask for permission. Since it is clear that Invariant Sections can be improved, it is clear that they fall within the ambit of the Fourth Freedom: The freedom to improve the program. Since the freedoms must be held without the need to ask or pay for permission, a document which uses Invariant Sections cannot be free. Note that the Fourth Freedom does not distinguish between different kinds of improvements; it does not care whether the improvement is important; it does not care about the risk of harmful changes. Now the article on free documentation says that you don't think permission to modify political articles is important. So be it--but the point is that the requirement to *distribute* them along with the non-political documentation is a problem; it functions as a restriction on the modification of the *technical documentation*. Your apology in the free-doc.html article was added only after Debian people started complaining about the FSF's practice; but what you say there still holds in part: It must be possible to modify all the *technical* content of the manual. The presence of Invariant Sections in fact makes it impossible to do certain kinds of modification of the technical content: importantly, it makes impossible those which take the content and turn it into something completely non-manual-like and non-book-like entirely. Thomas
