Re: The debate on Invariant sections (long)
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wednesday, Jun 11, 2003, at 09:08 US/Eastern, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: I already asked the question here and it seems there is a consensus on that mailing list that a GFDL document without Invariant Sections and Cover Texts is 100 % free. It was a while ago until people noticed the other problems. Personally, I have concerns about the definition of transparent (is that the right word?) copies, and how it forces a text- and image-only worldview. That was my biggest complaint. In particular, I can't distribute things that I create or modify with Lyx or Openoffice. Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[Antonello.Salvatucci@europe.lego.com: [Legousb-devel] Mindstorms SDK license]
Hi Antonello, Thanks a lot for your standing involvement with this license issue. I am forwarding your message to the debian-legal mailing list. Summary for the debian-legal folks: the legousb project currently uses a header file taken from the Lego Mindstorms SDK. This file is distributed under a non-DFSG compliant licence. Antonello Salvatucci is negociating with the Lego company in order to relax the licencing conditions, which could make legousb a free software product. Could you please give your advice about the clause (iii) below? The background on this discussion can be seen at the threads in legousb-devel starting at the messages: http://sf.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_id=1605045forum_id=2772 http://sf.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_id=1606958forum_id=2772 http://sf.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_id=1606959forum_id=2772 http://sf.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_id=2569353forum_id=2772 - Forwarded message from Antonello Salvatucci [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 10:13:01 +0200 From: Antonello Salvatucci [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Legousb-devel] Mindstorms SDK license Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi all, Some time back there has been some discussion on this list regarding a proposed change to the Mindstorms SDK license agreement to allow inclusion of the USB Tower Linux driver with the Debian distro (see previous discussions about this in the list archive). After some talks back and forth, it has been decided to keep the non-commercial clause. However it has been proposed (not approved yet) to add a specific exception regarding device drivers that looks like this: (iii) Any end-user applications developed by means of the SDK or parts hereof shall only be used for purposes that neither directly nor indirectly have any commercial implications; however, device drivers developed by means of the SDK or parts hereof may be included and sold as part of operating system distributions, as long as said operating system distribution is also made available to everybody for download, free of charge; How does this sound? Antonello ___ Antonello Salvatucci Interactive Playmaterials and 3D Platforms, LEGO Virtual Global Innovation and Marketing, LEGO System A/S DK-7190, Billund - DENMARK - End forwarded message -
Re: [Antonello.Salvatucci@europe.lego.com: [Legousb-devel] Mindstorms SDK license]
Hi Rafael! You wrote: (iii) Any end-user applications developed by means of the SDK or parts hereof shall only be used for purposes that neither directly nor indirectly have any commercial implications; however, device drivers developed by means of the SDK or parts hereof may be included and sold as part of operating system distributions, as long as said operating system distribution is also made available to everybody for download, free of charge; How does this sound? Quite non-free, unfortunately. It voilates DPFG 9: 9. License Must Not Contaminate Other Software The license must not place restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be free software. Apart from this, for the program to be free, we also need to be allowed to modify the program, which the above clause seems to forbid (or at least, not explicitly allow). -- Kind regards, ++ | Bas Zoetekouw | GPG key: 0644fab7 | || Fingerprint: c1f5 f24c d514 3fec 8bf6 | | [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] | a2b1 2bae e41f 0644 fab7 | ++
Proposed: Debian's Five Freedoms for Free Works
[Originally this was going to be a reply to the Lego Mindstorms SDK question, but it turned into an essay. Oh well. :) ] As Richard M. Stallman of the Free Software Foundation has been saying for twenty years or more, the Free in Free Software refers to freedom, not price. A great deal of Free Software is available to the general public free of charge, but that is not the essential characteristic of Free Software. The Free Software Foundation promulgates, and the Debian Project generally accepts, four essential freedoms as defining Free Software. The following is an enumeration of freedoms intended to apply to non-public-domain works in general. 1) The freedom to use the Work for any purpose. 2) The freedom adapt the Work to one's needs. Access to the form of the work which is preferred for making modifications (for software, the source code), if applicable, is a precondition for this. 3) The freedom to redistribute copies of the Work. 4) The freedom to change the Work for any purpose[1], to distribute one's changes, and to distribute the Work in modified form. Access to the form of the work which is preferred for making modifications, if applicable, is a precondition for this. (You can read more about the Free Software Foundation's definition of Free Software at: URL:http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html. You will note that my wording differs slightly from the Free Software Foundation's. This is deliberate.) I personally have advocated a fifth freedom: 5) The freedom to retain privacy in one's person, effects, and data, including, but not limited to, all Works in one's possession and one's own changes to Works written by others. I need to work on the wording of this fifth freedom a bit to make it clear that it is fair for a person to whom Free Software is distributed to demand access to the source code, including the source code to any changes or improvements made by the person from whom one is receiving the software. The point is that my usage of your Free Software does not entitle you to access to or any rights in my improvements to your software unless I distribute the Software back to you specifically. Other consequences of my proposed fifth freedom are that a Free Software licensor has no right to insist that a person to whom software is distributed disclose any more information about him- or herself than is strictly necessary for processing of the transaction. For example, a Free Software licensor cannot insists that a distributee disclose his credit rating (or compel a grant of permission to find out, by running a credit check), that a work of Free Software retain code that scans the contents of one's hard drive and reports on its findings to the author of the software, to a third party, or even to the user him- or herself, or that a Free book must retain a foreword which calls for the extermination of Lendu people. Comments? [1] Except the eradication of legal notices necessary to communicate and preserve the legal status of the software. This means applicable copyright notices, license terms, references to license terms, warranty disclaimers, and so forth. Freedom four *does* include the freedom to remove or change such material where it is incorrect or inapplicable, and add correct and applicable material of this nature. -- G. Branden Robinson|It is the responsibility of Debian GNU/Linux |intellectuals to tell the truth and [EMAIL PROTECTED] |expose lies. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |-- Noam Chomsky pgpN15CzqnU4s.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Proposed: Debian's Five Freedoms for Free Works
Branden said: snip Comments? Well, I love it. :-) --Nathanael
Re: Proposed: Debian's Five Freedoms for Free Works
Hi, Am Don, 2003-06-12 um 23.21 schrieb Branden Robinson: 5) The freedom to retain privacy in one's person, effects, and data, including, but not limited to, all Works in one's possession and one's own changes to Works written by others. Isn't that effectively this lonely island test? Since if it would be required to disclose any information, the lonely islander would not be able to use it legally. And if I got it right, then the lonely island test has been applied to all Debian software (or at least to those in doubt), so one can actually hope that every piece of Debian software and data already confirms to your 5th Requirement for Freedom. Besides that, I fully support that proposal, since I value privacy very high Joachim Breitner Debian Developer to be :-) -- Joachim Breitner e-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Homepage: http://www.joachim-breitner.de JID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GPG-Keyid: 4743206C | ICQ#: 74513189 Geekcode: GCS/IT/S d-- s++:- a--- C++ UL+++ P+++ !E W+++ N-- !W O? M?+ V? PS++ PE PGP++ t? 5? X- R+ tv- b++ DI+ D+ G e+* h! z? Bitte senden Sie mir keine Word- oder PowerPoint-Anhänge. Siehe http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.de.html signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
Re: Proposed: Debian's Five Freedoms for Free Works
On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 04:21:35PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: 4) The freedom to change the Work for any purpose[1], to distribute one's changes, and to distribute the Work in modified form. Access to the form of the work which is preferred for making modifications, if applicable, is a precondition for this. I find the second sentence here to be prejudicial and inaccurate. Mostly it leads to debates over what the preferred form for modification is, much like we've had debates over what source code is. Firstly, it deals with preferences. The problem here is that different people have different preferences, and it is not inconceivable that they might prefer different forms for modification. Take a document as an example; do you prefer latex source, or a word document? Given your answer, would you contend that everybody shares this preference?[0] Secondly, it implicitly states, through use of the definite article, that there is only one such form. This is needlessly confusing, not to mention often wrong. I contemplated a few ways to rephrase it, but whenever I tried, I found myself arriving back at the first sentence again[1]. As such, I think it'd be best to remove the second one outright; the freedom is already adequetely described by the first. *Any* form which allows you to modify the work for any purpose, is good enough. [0] I can make many more arguments along these lines; in the name of brevity, I will refrain from doing so at this time. [1] Access to any form of the work that allows you to change it for any... oh, damn -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | Dept. of Computing, `. `' | Imperial College, `- -- | London, UK pgpX9WJdnvxmr.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Proposed: Debian's Five Freedoms for Free Works
On 13 Jun 2003 01:15:38 +0200 Joachim Breitner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 5) The freedom to retain privacy in one's person, effects, and data, including, but not limited to, all Works in one's possession and one's own changes to Works written by others. Isn't that effectively this lonely island test? Since if it would be required to disclose any information, the lonely islander would not be able to use it legally. And if I got it right, then the lonely island test has been applied to all Debian software (or at least to those in doubt), so one can actually hope that every piece of Debian software and data already confirms to your 5th Requirement for Freedom. Besides that, I fully support that proposal, since I value privacy very high Correct. What Branden is saying (among other things) is that the license should not require you to return changes to the author; thus any such license passes the lonely island test pgpuCqs2sidLo.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Proposed: Debian's Five Freedoms for Free Works
On Thu, 12 Jun 2003 16:21:35 -0500 Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Comments? One thing I don't think that's entirely clear is about the labelling of your changes. The GPL specifies that you must put a notice in a given file detailing the date and nature of the changes. Such may or may not be considered part of the copyright notice, and I'd like to see point #3 amended to say that the license may require notices of modification within the source material should it be redistributed. Or however you want to work it in :) pgpwKQbyXlBM1.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Proposed: Debian's Five Freedoms for Free Works
On Fri, 13 Jun 2003 01:10:23 +0100 Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 04:21:35PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: 4) The freedom to change the Work for any purpose[1], to distribute one's changes, and to distribute the Work in modified form. Access to the form of the work which is preferred for making modifications, if applicable, is a precondition for this. I contemplated a few ways to rephrase it, but whenever I tried, I found myself arriving back at the first sentence again[1]. As such, I think it'd be best to remove the second one outright; the freedom is already adequetely described by the first. *Any* form which allows you to modify the work for any purpose, is good enough. There are all sorts of tools out there that patch binaries, most of which may be nefarious; however, it does allow you to modify the work for any purpose. It's just obscenely difficult to do so for any but the most trivial of changes. How about: 4) The freedome to change the Work for any purpose, to distribute one's changes, and to distribute the Work in modified form. Access to the form of the Work in which the original author uses for making changes (if applicable) is a precondition for this. That'd get all realistic definitions of source, and will stop people from saying I want it in LaTeX, I don't care if you use plaintext files. Some rephrasing I think is still necessary; I don't like the original in there, but without it somebody might think the author is the person who's requesting the source. pgpxyQooyi15N.pgp Description: PGP signature
