Re: Freaky copyright laws [was: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free]

[Steve Langasek]

On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 02:05:54AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 12:48:42PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> [database protection]
> > Well, regardless of whether it's *called* copyright, it is a copy-right
> > -- by virtue of the fact that it's an exclusive right granted to the
> > creator to control the creation of copies of the work.

> That's not a very accurate definition of copyright, is it? "If it
> involves controlling copies, surely there's copyright involved as well?"

Of course it's accurate.  That's what copyright *means*.

> There are quite a few differences between copyright on the one hand, and
> database protecting laws on the other:

s/copyright/the set of local laws labelled "copyright"/

Naturally the database directive isn't commonly referred to as a
copyright.  If it were, then someone might catch on that it's completely
inconsistent with the rest of copyright law, and wonder why databases
should enjoy such special protection.  So the law is very carefully
positioned as being separate from copyright; its purpose is,
nevertheless, to control the creation of copies of works.

> * If you create a database, you have the right to
>   - forbid reuse and/or requesting information from the database.
> Obviously, some people want to make some money out of creating a
> database :-)

I don't understand this.  It's self-evident to me that you have the
right to not provide information to people if you so choose.  How does
this part of the law change anything?

>   - Control the first sale inside the EU. However, you cannot forbid
> further sales; once the database has been sold inside the EU (with
> the permission of the creator of the database, obviously), the
> creator loses his right to control further selling of the database.
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this is not the case for
> copyrighted works.

It is the case under any reasonable copyright regime.  There are efforts
now by various copyright holders to restrict the right of first sale
through the enactment of shrink wrap licenses with the buyer, but at
least in the US, copyright law still says that you can re-sell a copy of
a work that's in your possession.  You just can't copy it.

> Copyright isn't just about "controlling who gets to copy what". It's
> also about protecting the original author.

Under *your* copyright regime.  In any case, those particular features
would be more accurately described by the French term "droit d'auteur"
rather than "copyright".  In English at least, the term "copyright"
pretty clearly refers to the creation of copies.

-- 
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer


pgpfChBhxn77S.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

[Don Armstrong]

On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Richard Stallman wrote:
> These facts have not prevented the open source movement from quite
> effectively covering up what we stand for, and our movement's very
> existence.  They cannot make any specific person forget, but they
> have led most US journalists to deny our existence, so that most
> people never find out about us. 

The ineptitude of many US journalists continues to increase without
bounds.[1] They often report on what they don't understand, or what
they haven't read. Frankly, they are the second to last people who
would ever read GFDL'ed documentation, let alone the GNU Manifesto
within some of the same.[2]

> We need every method of informing them that we can get.

Then why not go the Reiser[3] way and require that an advertisement
for the Free Software movement be printed out at every interactive
invocation of a GNU derived GPLed program?

While the intention of spreading the word about the free software
movement is laudable, the people most heavily affected by these
methods are often free software's staunchest, although often not the
most outspoken, supporters.


Don Armstrong

1: I refer you to Fox News and MSNBC for rather depressing examples of
the same.
2: I'd imagine that people who can't read would be the last, but I
could have the order wrong.
3: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/debian-devel-200304/msg01295.html
-- 
You could say she lived on the edge... Well, maybe not exactly on the edge,
just close enough to watch other people fall off.
  -- hugh macleod http://www.gapingvoid.com/batch8.htm

http://www.donarmstrong.com
http://www.anylevel.com
http://rzlab.ucr.edu


pgpJDQyap3LGM.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

[Joe Wreschnig]

On Mon, 2003-08-25 at 20:38, Richard Stallman wrote:
> Now, the World Wide Web exists.  And the FSF has its own website.
> Anyone who looks at the attribution of any FSF program or manual
> can probably find the website.  People who have never seen an FSF
> program or manual can find the website, too.  The website will
> always contain the GNU Manifesto, unmodified, regardless of the
> actions of distributors.
> 
> In other words, what happens to the local copies simply isn't as
> important as it used to be.
> 
> These facts have not prevented the open source movement from quite
> effectively covering up what we stand for, and our movement's very
> existence.  They cannot make any specific person forget, but they
> have led most US journalists to deny our existence, so that
> most people never find out about us.  We need every method of
> informing them that we can get.

Out of curiousity - Has these actually been a case of people removing,
say, the GNU Manifesto or the LINUX-GNU file from Emacs, and then
distributing it on a large scale? Or removed other philosophical
documents from GNU manuals or programs when they are normally
distributed together, the specific example is unimportant.

Do you think this was the fault of open source movement (or those
misinformed by their rhetoric), or perhaps was it someone concerned
about disk or physical (e.g. number of printed pages) space?
-- 
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


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

Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy

[Joe Wreschnig]

On Mon, 2003-08-25 at 18:55, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> >From Richard Stallman on the debian-legal list 
> (http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200308/msg01323.html):
> >Second, the FSF is not working on changing the GFDL now.  We intend to
> >continue to use invariant sections that cannot be removed, as we have
> >always done. 
> 
> This seems to conflict with Anthony Towns's statement
> (http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200308/msg01022.html):
> >In short, some members of the FSF have asked for us to give them some
> >more time to come up with a GFDL that's DFSG-free before we go all
> >gung-ho about putting it in non-free and having bigger controversies.
> >Martin (wearing his DPL hat) talked to me about this at debcamp.
> 
> Either:
> 1. These members of the FSF don't know what they're doing, and have no 
> influence
> 2. They're just trying to delay the removal of GFDL'ed material from main. 
> 3. These members have a great deal of influence over RMS.
> 4. These members have the power to overrule RMS.

5. AJ, Martin, and/or others misunderstood the statement that the FSF is
working to make the GFDL and GPL compatible licenses, and didn't
consider the possibility that it was the GPL that would be modified.
-- 
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


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

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

[Richard Stallman]

Now, the World Wide Web exists.  And the FSF has its own website.
Anyone who looks at the attribution of any FSF program or manual
can probably find the website.  People who have never seen an FSF
program or manual can find the website, too.  The website will
always contain the GNU Manifesto, unmodified, regardless of the
actions of distributors.

In other words, what happens to the local copies simply isn't as
important as it used to be.

These facts have not prevented the open source movement from quite
effectively covering up what we stand for, and our movement's very
existence.  They cannot make any specific person forget, but they
have led most US journalists to deny our existence, so that
most people never find out about us.  We need every method of
informing them that we can get.

Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy

[Nathanael Nerode]

>From Richard Stallman on the debian-legal list 
(http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200308/msg01323.html):
>Second, the FSF is not working on changing the GFDL now.  We intend to
>continue to use invariant sections that cannot be removed, as we have
>always done. 

This seems to conflict with Anthony Towns's statement
(http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200308/msg01022.html):
>In short, some members of the FSF have asked for us to give them some
>more time to come up with a GFDL that's DFSG-free before we go all
>gung-ho about putting it in non-free and having bigger controversies.
>Martin (wearing his DPL hat) talked to me about this at debcamp.

Either:
1. These members of the FSF don't know what they're doing, and have no 
influence
2. They're just trying to delay the removal of GFDL'ed material from main. 
3. These members have a great deal of influence over RMS.
4. These members have the power to overrule RMS.

In the case of 1, I see no reason for keeping GFDL'ed material in main.  In 
the case of 2, it's a positively good idea to take it out as soon as 
possible, so as to thwart their evil plans.  ;-)  Cases 3 and 4 seem 
exceedingly unlikely, although they would be wonderful.

Branden's survey showed a majority belief that the GFDL never satisfied the 
DFSG, and no belief that it satisfied it without case-by-case analysis.

All we need now is a survey which asks the following:

QUESTION.
What, if anything, which is distributed as part of Debian (in main, contrib, 
and non-US) should be exempt from satisfying the Debian Free Software 
Guidelines (as far as they are meaningful for it)?

Check all that apply:
[ ] Nothing at all should be exempt.
[ ] Legal notices required to distribute other material, and only distributed 
for that reason (such as licenses for distributed programs) should be exempt.
[ ] All documentation should be exempt.
[ ] All essays and opinion pieces should be exempt.
[ ] Anything which isn't an executable program should be exempt.
[ ] Something else should be exempt (describe below):

I guess it should be asked with the usual 
[ ] Are you a Debian Developer as of today?
[ ] Are you in the NM queue, waiting to become a Debian Developer?

I'd also be quite curious about:
[ ] Have you contributed copyrights to the FSF?

Hrrm, but I'm not up to tabulating it this month.  Maybe someone else will.  
;-)

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

[Nathanael Nerode]

Branden Robinson wrote:
>On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 11:21:09AM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
>> > Nowadays we have to struggle constantly against the tendency to bury
>> > the free software movement and pretend that we advocate "open 
source".
>> 
>> "Let those who fight monsters take care lest they themselves become
>> monsters." - Friedrich Nietzsche
>> 
>> That danger always exists, but it can't be happening here in regard to
>> invariant sections, because they are not a change.  We've been using
>> invariant sections in our manuals since at least 15 years ago.
>
>The FSF hasn't started promoting the usage of Invariant Sections by
>others until recently.  The FSF clearly promulgates usage of the GNU FDL
>by third parties on its website.
>
>Furthermore, several GNU Manuals that used to be DFSG-free no longer
>are; take, for example, the GDB Manual.
>
>It's not just a continuation of the status quo that is taking place
>here.  The FSF has adopted an expansionist policy with respect to
>Invariant Sections.

This is a very important point.  I have stated before that I would not have 
serious objections to the FSF issuing a small number of non-free manuals for 
a good reason, as it has been doing for 15 years.  (Nearly the entire GNU 
Project website is 'verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article' 
only, so there's further precedent for the GNU Project distributing non-free 
material.)

In contrast, I have major objections to the FSF promoting the creation of 
lots and lots of non-free manuals.  And further objections to the FSF 
claiming while doing so that they are free manuals.  These policies *are* a 
significant change.

--Nathanael Nerode

Re: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?

[Matthew Garrett]

Fedor Zuev wrote:

>   Overgeneralization is not always good. Worrying about a
>possible problems in the far future instead of problems existed now
>in not nessesaryly involve promotion of freedom.

I worry about hypothetical issues now to avoid there being a large
quantity of GFDLed material in the future when the hypothetical issues
suddenly turn up and screw everyone. If you have nothing to add to this
thread other than "You don't need to worry about the restrictions
because they probably won't cause any problems most of the time", I see
no point in responding further.
-- 
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

[Nathanael Nerode]

>>Lack of forced distribution is not "censorship".  Get a clue, or a
>>dictionary.
>
>Heh.
>
>"Why that ugly, non-free GPL license demand from me to
>distribute source code? Source would still be freely available from
>the FSF website! Lack of forced distribution do not harm a
>freedom!"   Agree?

Now you've changed the terms of your argument; I guess you admit that it's 
not 'censorship'.  Good.  :-)

In response to your new, different argument:

When I distribute GPL'ed binaries, I do not in fact have to distribute source 
with them.  I could also distribute, for instance:
* a written offer to provide source
* a copy of the written offer to provide source which I received

But more importantly, if I make a *modified version* of a GPL'ed program, I 
only have to distribute source to my *modified version*.  I do *not* have to 
distribute the source code to the FSF's version of GCC when I distribute my 
hacked-up version!

If I make a *modified version* of a GFDL'ed manual, no matter how 
dramatically altered, I still have to distribute the *original* Invariant 
Sections.

The situations are not similar.

I will not reply to any further nonsense on your part.  If you have something 
sensible and rational to say, go ahead.

Re: Freaky copyright laws [was: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free]

[Wouter Verhelst]

On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 12:48:42PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
[database protection]
> Well, regardless of whether it's *called* copyright, it is a copy-right
> -- by virtue of the fact that it's an exclusive right granted to the
> creator to control the creation of copies of the work.

That's not a very accurate definition of copyright, is it? "If it
involves controlling copies, surely there's copyright involved as well?"

There are quite a few differences between copyright on the one hand, and
database protecting laws on the other:

* Copyright requires the protected subject to be "original". You can't
  take a book, or even a number of books, and put that under copyright;
  there is no such restriction for a database.
* For database protection, it is required that the acquisition, control
  or presentation of the database shows a qualitatively or
  quantitatively substantial investment. i.e., you can't just
  alphabetically list your books on a piece of paper, state that it is a
  "database", and assume protection; you'd have to have a whole library
  before that could be true. The same is not true for copyright; as long
  as you're the first one to do so, it can be copyrighted.
* Database law makes a difference between reuse of and requesting
  information from a database. In this context, reuse means that you are
  making the contents of the database available to the public, whereas
  the other action would be something like making a photocopy, printing
  a part of the electronical database, etc. These aren't very accurate
  descriptions (my original text is in Dutch, and I'm having troubles
  with parts of the translation), but it gives you an idea.
* If you create a database, you have the right to
  - forbid reuse and/or requesting information from the database.
Obviously, some people want to make some money out of creating a
database :-)
  - Control the first sale inside the EU. However, you cannot forbid
further sales; once the database has been sold inside the EU (with
the permission of the creator of the database, obviously), the
creator loses his right to control further selling of the database.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this is not the case for
copyrighted works.
* As a user of a database, you can *without permission of the creator of
  that database* request a substantial part of the database, as long as
  it's either for private or educational use, or 'to guarantee the
  public security', whatever that might include (you know, secret agents
  and stuff).
* Database law does not include stuff such as 'moral rights', or
  'parental rights'. You only have the right to control the exploitation
  of the database (until you sell it).
* Contrary to copyright law, you can give up all your rights to a
  database; this is probably related to the fact that those rights that
  cannot be given up are exactly the rights that don't exist in database
  law. Also, the rights to a database can be owned by a company (or how
  do you say that in English, a legal structure that is a person, as far
  as the law is concerned), which isn't the case for copyrighted works
  (probably because creating a database requires a substantial amount of
  work, which cannot reasonably be done by a single (natural)
  person...).
* Finally, database law does not exclude other forms of protection; a
  database could theoretically be protected both by database law and by
  copyright law (if the requirements for both systems are fulfilled), or
  perhaps something else. I have the feeling, though, that in a
  real-life situation, not the entire database would be protected by
  copyright law; only parts of it.

Copyright isn't just about "controlling who gets to copy what". It's
also about protecting the original author. The same isn't the case with
database law; it serves a completely different purpose, so the
protection is of a completely different type.

Anyway.

#include 

I used the papers of my course of "IT law" I had to take during the last
year I went to school. It's pretty accurate, but what's in this mail is
an interpretation of an interpretation (I haven't seen the actual
lawtexts, only my teacher's interpretation of them). I could've made
some mistakes.

-- 
Wouter Verhelst
Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org
Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org
"Stop breathing down my neck." "My breathing is merely a simulation."
"So is my neck, stop it anyway!"
  -- Voyager's EMH versus the Prometheus' EMH, stardate 51462.


pgplR4ZdhAA5P.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

[David Starner]

Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes

> >How about a license which allowed off-topic code (say, a 'hangman'
> >game in the 'ls' program) which must be present unmodified in
> >source code of all derived versions, and must be invoked (perhaps
> >through a command-line option)  by every derived program?

> It almost certainly affect the normal use of program  and
> will be unacceptable because of this, not because of mere existence
> of such code.

How does ls --hangman bringing up a hangman program affect the normal
use of the program more then a large manifesto affect the normal use
of the manual? If you don't know that ls --hangman brings up a hangman
program and don't look at the code, you'll never know it's there, unlike
a manifest, which is always hanging in your face, appearing in searches,
and driving up the cost of printed versions.


__
Do you want a free e-mail for life ? Get it at http://www.email.ro/

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

[Anthony DeRobertis]

On Monday, Aug 25, 2003, at 10:44 US/Eastern, Fedor Zuev wrote:



So, there is no censorship in the world as long as no one
threaten to kill you? Well.


That's not what I said, and even if it were, there are other forms of 
coercion, intimidation, etc. besides death threats.


[And there is a big difference between censoring a person and censoring 
a copy of a document, btw.]





[0] Just like cutting the philosophical sections from a manual.


No. Not like.


Care to explain how?



Please note, that you do not need a special license from me
to include (or even not include) portion of my post in your. But for
manual you expect explicit permission.


Not at all. I can include portions of (or, if needed, the whole) manual 
for similar purposes in a document I write, at least in the US. We call 
it "fair use."

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

[Dylan Thurston]

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John Goerzen wrote:
> I didn't post it yet because I'm not yet sure in my own mind what the right
> guidelines are.  Despite the assertions of some, I do not think that just
> accepting GFDL 100% is the right thing to do here.
> 
> I see the following scenarios:
> 
> 1. I'm a Free Software user.  I am using Emacs, a large Free system that
> requires documentation to learn by any means.  But that documentation is
> missing or obsolete because of GFDL.  I cannot make use of this Free
> package.
> 
> 2. I'm a Free Software developer and want to make a derivative program, but
> can't because it requires documentation, and I disagree with the GNU
> manifesto and can't adapt it, and don't have the time to rewrite the manual
> from scratch.
> 
> As a developer myself, and a believer in the principles of the free software
> movement, I'm inclined to conclude that #2 is the larger problem in the long
> run.  I wasn't necessarily so inclined two weeks ago.
> 
> Regardless, I still maintain that documentation is not software and does
> need separate guidelines.

If you do end up coming to the conclusion that the GFDL (with
invariant sections) would not meet your standards for free
documentation, you should make sure to include an example of some
license that would be judged differently under your proposed free
documentation guidelines and the DFSG.  (Do you have such an example
in mind already?)

Peace,
Dylan Thurston

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

[Sergey V. Spiridonov]

Josselin Mouette wrote:


The work being proprietary has nothing to do with the contents of the
work itself, which is just what I stated above. Please don't answer to a


This is irrelevant. I do not really understand, why do you think it is 
that important. Do you think that "restricting" is not the same as 
"taking away the freedom"? Why it is important for you, in which way it 
is done?



The GFDL is very different. It adds restrictions you often find in
proprietary software: discrimination against fields of endeavour,
restrictions on modification.


As with GPL, those FDL resrictions have completely another background in 
comparison with proprietary software. One, who ignores the difference in 
the FDL background should reject GPL also (if he wants to be consistent).


I don't see much difference between a proprietary work you can't modify
and a proprietary work you can't modify with a "Free" stick. Blabbering
about world domination of free software without even ensuring works you
release are free is a good way to fail: when world domination is
achieved, you realize you made so many exceptions that you are far from
your original vision.


There is such a danger. People who want to produce software without any 
restrictions and danger prefer Public Domain. They try to ignore 
proprietary software existance.

--
Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov

Re: Freaky copyright laws [was: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free]

[Andrew Suffield]

On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 12:48:42PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > Over in Europe, you can copyright a database of obvious facts, even if
> > > it isn't organized in a clever fashion.  
> 
> > You do not copyright a database. You claim database rights on
> > such a database if you can prove a substantial investment in
> > time, effort or money for its creation. European countries also
> > have trademarks, which you can get even without being creative
> > and original. It's a different law.
> 
> Well, regardless of whether it's *called* copyright, it is a copy-right
> creator to control the creation of copies of the work.

More to the point: this law is specific to databases, and does not
apply to computer programs. And even for databases, it's hard to make
it stick.

-- 
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'  |
   `- -><-  |


pgpQqIGafhZSN.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

[Andrew Suffield]

On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 11:44:25PM +0900, Fedor Zuev wrote:
>   Please note, that you do not need a special license from me
> to include (or even not include) portion of my post in your. But for
> manual you expect explicit permission.

This is false. I can legally quote you anywhere I want to, so long as
I am quoting you accurately.

I can even misquote you if I'm creating satire.

-- 
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'  |
   `- -><-  |


pgps8pK6XHGCz.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

[Andrew Suffield]

On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 11:57:01PM +0900, Fedor Zuev wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Aug 2003, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> 
> >Would you consider a hypothetical program license to be free if it
> >allowed 'off-topic' text which must be present unmodified in source
> >and object code of all derived versions, and must be displayed
> >(perhaps through a command-line option) by every derived program?
> >Maybe you would, in which case you're consistent.  I wouldn't.
> 
>   This is the exactly what old BSD license do.

No it isn't. The 4-clause BSD license requires you to add text to any
advertising materials you may produce. Nothing to do with the content
of the program.

-- 
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'  |
   `- -><-  |


pgpMZOdgX66Kk.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Freaky copyright laws [was: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free]

[Branden Robinson]

On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 04:42:28PM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 10:39:02PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > I thought basically every place outside the U.S. was like that.  Several
> > times when the U.S. Supreme Court decision of _Feist v. Rural Telephone
> > Service Co._ has come up, it's been ridiculed by some Europeans.
> 
> Can you substantiate that?  I don't remember any such ridicule.

I'm pretty sure I'm remembering the word lists argument.  Looking for
posts to this list with "aspell" in the subject line might turn it up.

If I recall correctly, U.S. legal tradition was ridiculed for not being
grounded on "sweat-of-the-brow" arguments.  In actual fact, very little
"IP law" in the U.S. appears to be grounded on that.  It's not generally
relevant to either copyright or patent law in the U.S.  I guess it sort
of applies to trademark law, where commercial interests face a "use it
or lose it" situation.  However, they don't have to "sweat" much to get
awarded a trademark in the first place, so maybe it fails there too.

I suspect that "sweat-of-the-brow" principles actually discourage the
cultivation of an intellectual commons rather than reinforcing one.

That isn't to say I find the U.S. system preferable.  No place in the
world appears to be a terribly good environment for intellectual
communitarianism.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson| The power of accurate observation
Debian GNU/Linux   | is frequently called cynicism by
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | those who don't have it.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- George Bernard Shaw


pgpWmA5OJxTsR.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

[Josselin Mouette]

Le lun 25/08/2003 à 20:32, Sergey V. Spiridonov a écrit :
> Josselin Mouette wrote:
> 
> > GPL doesn't take away freedom. It is a copyleft, full stop. As long as
> > you respect the copyleft, you are free to do anything you want with the
> > software. There is no limitation in what you can do, the limitation is
> > on how you have to do it.
> 
> Sorry, but GPL have restrictions on what you can do with the code. One 
> of the most noticeble is a restriction on using GPL code in(with) 
> proprietary works.

The work being proprietary has nothing to do with the contents of the
work itself, which is just what I stated above. Please don't answer to a
message by showing you haven't even read it, this behavior is quite
prone to get you put in some killfiles (which already happened).

> > The GFDL is very different. It adds restrictions you often find in
> > proprietary software: discrimination against fields of endeavour,
> > restrictions on modification.
> 
> As with GPL, those FDL resrictions have completely another background in 
> comparison with proprietary software. One, who ignores the difference in 
> the FDL background should reject GPL also (if he wants to be consistent).

I don't see much difference between a proprietary work you can't modify
and a proprietary work you can't modify with a "Free" stick. Blabbering
about world domination of free software without even ensuring works you
release are free is a good way to fail: when world domination is
achieved, you realize you made so many exceptions that you are far from
your original vision.
-- 
 .''`.   Josselin Mouette/\./\
: :' :   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
`. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  `-  Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom


signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message	numériquement signée

Re: Bug#181493: Is the Sun RPC License DFSG-free?

[Joe Drew]

On Mon, 2003-08-25 at 14:26, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 09:03:13AM -0400, Joe Drew wrote:
> > On Sun, 2003-08-24 at 17:03, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 11:39:51AM -0700, Jeff Bailey wrote:
> > > > We also have essentially the same license with ttf-bitstream-vera.
> > > 
> > > IMO, that isn't Free Software, either.
> > 
> > There are no practical restrictions on its freedom; I fail to see how it
> > isn't free software.
> 
> Sure there are.  If my neighbor asks me for a copy of it, I burn it to a
> CD-R, and ask him for a quarter to recoup the cost of the blank CD-R,
> I've just violated the license.

That's why you include on the CD the following shell script, echo.sh:

#!/bin/sh
echo $*

Then you are selling echo.sh plus bitstream vera fonts, which is not a
violation of the license.

Re: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?

[Josselin Mouette]

Le lun 25/08/2003 à 16:21, Fedor Zuev a écrit :
> On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> 
> >Le lun 25/08/2003 ? 09:22, Fedor Zuev a ?crit :
> >> When you try to apply license outside of its scope you should expect
> >> to receive funny results. GFDL has a very narrow scope. It is bad.
> >> But it is different problem.
> 
> >No, it is exactly one of the problems.
> 
>   Every free license have its scope of applicability, outside
> of which it may turn to non-free license. For example, if you
> license a music phonorecord under GPL, you get pretty non-free
> phonorecord with funny license. And you can begin from GPL-covered
> literary work.

*shrug* This would be non-free? Wow.

BTW, don't even try to justify this statement, you have already proved
several times you are able to say any sort of crap without foundation in
this discussion.

>   Yes, I would understand your points. GFDL has too narrow
> scope for.
> 
>   But, please, can you take one point at a time?
> 
>   You talk about real dangers for users from GFDL?

We have been talking about dangers for users FROM THE BEGINNING OF THIS
DISCUSSION. I suggest you read it again. And if you don't understand it,
read it once again. This may be needed for stubborn minds.

>   Or you talk about Eternal Freedom?

We are talking about freedom for our users *today*, not in 70 years.

>   What _exactly_ wrong with DFSG? DFSG does not define scope
> in which works should be freely modifiable. It can't be universal
> scope because there is no licenses, which free in the universal
> scope.

Free licenses don't discriminate against scope, that is the point.
-- 
 .''`.   Josselin Mouette/\./\
: :' :   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
`. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  `-  Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom


signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message	numériquement signée

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

[Sergey V. Spiridonov]

Josselin Mouette wrote:


GPL doesn't take away freedom. It is a copyleft, full stop. As long as
you respect the copyleft, you are free to do anything you want with the
software. There is no limitation in what you can do, the limitation is
on how you have to do it.


Sorry, but GPL have restrictions on what you can do with the code. One 
of the most noticeble is a restriction on using GPL code in(with) 
proprietary works.



The GFDL is very different. It adds restrictions you often find in
proprietary software: discrimination against fields of endeavour,
restrictions on modification.


As with GPL, those FDL resrictions have completely another background in 
comparison with proprietary software. One, who ignores the difference in 
the FDL background should reject GPL also (if he wants to be consistent).


I wish to have the world clear from proprietary software, but this will 
not happen automagically. GPL and FDL do the great job for reaching this 
goal.

--
Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov

Re: Bug#181493: Is the Sun RPC License DFSG-free?

[Branden Robinson]

On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 09:03:13AM -0400, Joe Drew wrote:
> On Sun, 2003-08-24 at 17:03, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 11:39:51AM -0700, Jeff Bailey wrote:
> > > We also have essentially the same license with ttf-bitstream-vera.
> > 
> > IMO, that isn't Free Software, either.
> 
> There are no practical restrictions on its freedom; I fail to see how it
> isn't free software.

Sure there are.  If my neighbor asks me for a copy of it, I burn it to a
CD-R, and ask him for a quarter to recoup the cost of the blank CD-R,
I've just violated the license.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson|
Debian GNU/Linux   |   If existence exists,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |   why create a creator?
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |


pgpT6L0YxfmiF.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?

[Yven Johannes Leist]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Thursday 21 August 2003 07:09, Branden Robinson wrote:
>
> Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2
>
>   Please mark with an "X" the item that most closely approximates your
>   opinion.  Mark only one.
>
>   [ X ]  The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published
>  by the Free Software Foundation, is not a license compatible
>  with the Debian Free Software Guidelines.  Works under this
>  license would require significant additional permission
>  statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this
>  license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for
>  inclusion in the Debian OS.
>
>   [   ]  The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published
>  by the Free Software Foundation, is a license compatible
>  with the Debian Free Software Guidelines.  In general, works
>  under this license would require no additional permission
>  statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this
>  license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for
>  inclusion in the Debian OS.
>
>   [   ]  The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published
>  by the Free Software Foundation, can be a license compatible
>  with the Debian Free Software Guidelines, but only if certain
>  restrictions stated in the license are not exercised by the
>  copyright holder with respect to a given work.  Works under
>  this license will have to be scrutinized on a case-by-case
>  basis for us to determine whether the work can be be considered
>  Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS.
>
>   [   ]  None of the above statements approximates my opinion.
>
> Part 2. Status of Respondent
>
>   Please mark with an "X" the following item only if it is true.
>
>   [ X ]  I am a Debian Developer as described in the Debian
>  Constitution as of the date on this survey.
>

- -- 
Yven Johannes Leist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.leist.beldesign.de
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/SkrDsUvO/jFtyPsRAt2xAJ9tv97HCmFPsDnuM2d+YuaOmnc/hgCgjYpG
avcUVT94p+8C2p96qvC3Fzc=
=x9o+
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

[David B Harris]

On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 00:55:05 +0900 (IRKST)
Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> 
> JM>> the freedom of _users_ and _authors_. It is in the best interest of
> JM>> users to receive unstripped version of manual. It is also in the
> JM>> best interest of authors. Interest of distributor is non-issue.
> 
> JM>Are you trying to assert point 2 of the GFDL doesn't restrict
> JM>freedom of users?
> 
>   Exactly, I still not see any non-stupid demonstration of the
> contrary. I prefer not to state anything else.

My $HOME is on an encrypted filesystem. If I have any GFDL documents on
that filesystem, I'm in violation of the license.

If I want to send a friend one of these GFDL documents, I may not use
SSL or any other form of encryption.

If I'm on a shared, multi-user system, I must leave any directories a
GFDL document is in as world-readable; to restrict permissions would be
to use a technical measure to restrict the further reading of the
document.

Are those examples allright? I could come up with more if you'd like.


pgpmHO0nS4P34.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Legal status of software licences

[Richard Braakman]

On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 05:38:38PM +0300, Aigars Mahinovs wrote:
> If it is then I can imagine such scenario:

There are much more interesting scenarios to imagine.

Person A owns a computer.

Person B installs a game on person A's computer, and happily clicks
through the EULA.  Person B is not an adult so can't be bound by a
contract anyway, even if you pretend that the EULA establishes one.
Furthermore, person B has does not own this computer and has no
authority to grant any of the things that the EULA claims (such
as permission to install spyware on the computer).

Later, Person A notices the new game and plays it, unaware that there
is any such thing as an EULA.


Shrinkwrap licenses are even stranger than click-through licenses
in this regard.  Imagine a company mailroom, where for security
reasons all packages are opened and inspected before being sent
on to the addressee.  Who here is bound by the license?

There are many cases where the person installing or unpacking a
program is not the person who bought it, and/or not the person
who owns the computer.  They all lead to strange results if you
make such EULAs valid.  That's one reason why they shouldn't
be valid.

(One reason why they _should_ be valid is to encourage adoption
of free software :-)  But I really don't like the existence
of any such mechanism that can implicitly bind me to contracts.
Imagine a soft drink bottle with a sealed cap that says on the
side, "Opening this bottle inside a car will grant Soft Drink
Producer, Inc. the right to use that car's windows to display
advertising banners", and a UCITA-like law that makes that
a valid contract.)

Richard Braakman

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

[Fedor Zuev]

On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Jacobo Tarrio wrote:

> What are you trying to rebute from my "clause" with it? It is more
>or less my reasoning: you can translate the book having only a
>hardcopy of it. Well, it is even standard practice. If you want to
>actually modify it -- well, you may either OCR it, or you may ask
>the publisher for a modifiable soft copy of the book.

Your clause is too broad. It demand from distributor not
provide some limited service, but care about user's ability of
exercise rights. What if user have only an ancient Amiga?

Re: Freaky copyright laws [was: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free]

[Steve Langasek]

On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 05:43:23PM +0200, Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet wrote:
> Branden Robinson wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 10:29:40PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > Good grief, there are jurisdictions where copyright law follows the
> > > first-finder-is-keeper system used by patents? I'm not sure that free
> > > software can work at all with laws like that.
> > > 
> > > Do you have a list? I want to avoid visiting such countries.

> > I thought basically every place outside the U.S. was like that.  Several
> > times when the U.S. Supreme Court decision of _Feist v. Rural Telephone
> > Service Co._ has come up, it's been ridiculed by some Europeans.

> That talked about databases, which is a separate legal right
> that has nothing to do with copyright. And yes, that was purely
> a lobbyist push by database producers. 

> > Over in Europe, you can copyright a database of obvious facts, even if
> > it isn't organized in a clever fashion.  

> You do not copyright a database. You claim database rights on
> such a database if you can prove a substantial investment in
> time, effort or money for its creation. European countries also
> have trademarks, which you can get even without being creative
> and original. It's a different law.

Well, regardless of whether it's *called* copyright, it is a copy-right
-- by virtue of the fact that it's an exclusive right granted to the
creator to control the creation of copies of the work.

-- 
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer


pgpWNnuQkZQQx.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

[Branden Robinson]

On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 11:21:09AM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
> > Nowadays we have to struggle constantly against the tendency to bury
> > the free software movement and pretend that we advocate "open source".
> 
> "Let those who fight monsters take care lest they themselves become
> monsters." - Friedrich Nietzsche
> 
> That danger always exists, but it can't be happening here in regard to
> invariant sections, because they are not a change.  We've been using
> invariant sections in our manuals since at least 15 years ago.

The FSF hasn't started promoting the usage of Invariant Sections by
others until recently.  The FSF clearly promulgates usage of the GNU FDL
by third parties on its website.

Furthermore, several GNU Manuals that used to be DFSG-free no longer
are; take, for example, the GDB Manual.

It's not just a continuation of the status quo that is taking place
here.  The FSF has adopted an expansionist policy with respect to
Invariant Sections.

-- 
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/ |


pgpGlei5Ec0Gf.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

[Josselin Mouette]

Le lun 25/08/2003 à 17:21, Richard Stallman a écrit :
> Several Debian developers have claimed that they are working with the
> FSF to make the GFDL DFSG-free and GPL-compatible, specifically:
> 
> I think I see two misunderstandings here.  Just who has misunderstood,
> I cannot tell.
> 
> First, as far as I have heard, Debian has not yet voted on the
> question of which GFDL-covered documents to accept.  I have therefore
> been trying to convince Debian developers that the GFDL is a free
> license and should be accepted.  Has Debian actually made this
> decision?

Regarding the results of the survey on this issue, almost everyone on
that list agrees on the fact a document with invariant sections cannot
be considered as free. Furthermore, a large majority thinks that no
GFDL'ed document can be considered at suitable for Debian main.

However, several developers believe we should have different rules for
documentation. It is not likely to happen before a long time, as it
requires changing the social contract, and they will encounter strong
opposition.

No decision has been made yet, but it is quite likely that after the
sarge release (which will include GFDL'ed documents as stated by the
Release Manager), some or all documents under the GFDL are removed from
our distribution and moved to non-free.

> We won't try to go beyond that until after GPL 3 is ready--and
> we're not making much progress on GPL 3 due to lack of manpower.

As for GPL 3, do you intend to use clauses similar to invariant sections
or to the technical measures stuff in GFDL section 2? This is a matter
of concern on this list.

Regards,
-- 
 .''`.   Josselin Mouette/\./\
: :' :   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
`. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  `-  Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom


signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message	numériquement signée

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

[Florian Weimer]

Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Nowadays we have to struggle constantly against the tendency to bury
> the free software movement and pretend that we advocate "open source".
> So I don't think we can conclude that such precautions are no longer
> necessary.

It's true that many have gladly taken GNU software while ignoring the
GNU philosophy (or actively working against it).  But I doubt that
invariant sections alone can ensure that the message will be heard.

For example, I might want to distribute the GNU Emacs manual without
the GNU Manifesto.  I could achieve something which is very close,
even though the Manifesto is an invariant section: I just patch the
Info viewers not to display the Manifesto.  As far as I can see, I'm
still allowed to distribute the modified Info viewer under the GPL,
and the (unmodified) manual under the GFDL.

However, if someone did something similar, I'd expect quite a lot
of additional publicity for the GNU Manifesto.  Furthermore, the
publicity wouldn't depend much on the legality of the removal or
suppression.  Journalists who are interested in free software
philosphy and its battles would report it nevertheless, and those who
are after awkward legal problems have such a limited audience that
their silence wouldn't matter that much.

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

[Joe Wreschnig]

On Mon, 2003-08-25 at 10:21, Richard Stallman wrote:
> Several Debian developers have claimed that they are working with the
> FSF to make the GFDL DFSG-free and GPL-compatible, specifically:
> 
> I think I see two misunderstandings here.  Just who has misunderstood,
> I cannot tell.
> 
> First, as far as I have heard, Debian has not yet voted on the
> question of which GFDL-covered documents to accept.  I have therefore
> been trying to convince Debian developers that the GFDL is a free
> license and should be accepted.  Has Debian actually made this
> decision?
> 
> Second, the FSF is not working on changing the GFDL now.  We intend to
> continue to use invariant sections that cannot be removed, as we have
> always done.  The only issue being considered (if it is still being
> considered) is what decision Debian will make about use of the GFDL.

Thank you for clearing this up.

You are correct that Debian has not yet voted on whether or not to allow
GFDLd works into its distribution. The consensus of debian-legal is that
works under the GFDL does not meet the DFSG.

This means if they are to be included in Debian, amendments will need to
be made to the Social Contract, and some sort of "Debian Free
Documentation Guidelines" outlining the necessary freedoms for
documentation needs to be proposed and voted on.

No one has yet done this, for various reasons.
-- 
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


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

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

[Fedor Zuev]

On Sun, 24 Aug 2003, Nathanael Nerode wrote:

>Would you consider a hypothetical program license to be free if it
>allowed 'off-topic' text which must be present unmodified in source
>and object code of all derived versions, and must be displayed
>(perhaps through a command-line option) by every derived program?
>Maybe you would, in which case you're consistent.  I wouldn't.

This is the exactly what old BSD license do.

>How about a license which allowed off-topic code (say, a 'hangman'
>game in the 'ls' program) which must be present unmodified in
>source code of all derived versions, and must be invoked (perhaps
>through a command-line option)  by every derived program?

It almost certainly affect the normal use of program  and
will be unacceptable because of this, not because of mere existence
of such code.

Re: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?

[Fedor Zuev]

On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Josselin Mouette wrote:

>Le lun 25/08/2003 ? 09:22, Fedor Zuev a ?crit :
>> When you try to apply license outside of its scope you should expect
>> to receive funny results. GFDL has a very narrow scope. It is bad.
>> But it is different problem.

>No, it is exactly one of the problems.

Every free license have its scope of applicability, outside
of which it may turn to non-free license. For example, if you
license a music phonorecord under GPL, you get pretty non-free
phonorecord with funny license. And you can begin from GPL-covered
literary work.

Yes, I would understand your points. GFDL has too narrow
scope for.

But, please, can you take one point at a time?

You talk about real dangers for users from GFDL?

Or you talk about Eternal Freedom?

Or you talk about DFSG compatability?

>Have you ever read the DFSG?

What _exactly_ wrong with DFSG? DFSG does not define scope
in which works should be freely modifiable. It can't be universal
scope because there is no licenses, which free in the universal
scope.

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

[Fedor Zuev]

On Sun, 24 Aug 2003, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:

>There a VERY large difference, as black from white, between me deciding
>not to repeat certain portions of Mr. Zuev's post[0] and sending people
>to intimidate or kill him. The former is known, at least in the free
>world, as free speech; the latter as censorship.

So, there is no censorship in the world as long as no one
threaten to kill you? Well.

>[0] Just like cutting the philosophical sections from a manual.

No. Not like.

Please note, that you do not need a special license from me
to include (or even not include) portion of my post in your. But for
manual you expect explicit permission.

Re: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?

[Fedor Zuev]

On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Matthew Garrett wrote:

>>When you try to apply license outside of its scope you should expect
>>to receive funny results. GFDL has a very narrow scope. It is bad.
>>But it is different problem.

>The GFDL may only be intended for documentation and the like, but
>if I want to use sections of material released under it elsewhere
>I'm obliged to use it. As has been pointed out, on occasion the
>result of this is that I can't release a combination of GFDL
>material under the GFDL, which means I can't release it at all.
>This is plainly stupid. From a pragmatic point of view, even if I
>could do so the combination of invarient sections I may be forced
>to distribute may render the result useless. It's a bad license,
>and it's a non-Free license.

There are any real cases?  Or, maybe, real (existed
nowadays, not hypotheticaly possible in the future) ground for such
cases? There a many DFSG-compliant free historical manuscripts?

Overgeneralization is not always good. Worrying about a
possible problems in the far future instead of problems existed now
in not nessesaryly involve promotion of freedom.

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

[Fedor Zuev]

On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Josselin Mouette wrote:

JM>> the freedom of _users_ and _authors_. It is in the best interest of
JM>> users to receive unstripped version of manual. It is also in the
JM>> best interest of authors. Interest of distributor is non-issue.

JM>Are you trying to assert point 2 of the GFDL doesn't restrict
JM>freedom of users?

Exactly, I still not see any non-stupid demonstration of the
contrary. I prefer not to state anything else.

Re: Legal status of software licences

[Barak Pearlmutter]

You hold the gun and I'll pull the trigger while wearing a blindfold,
then neither of us will be convicted of murder.  Won't work.  The law
is not a computer program.  There's this thing called "intent."  And
"conspiracy", and "guilty as charged", and "punitive fines", and
"jail" ...

If C knows (or has good reason to suspect) that the software he got
from B is an unauthorized copy then he is contributing to the illegal
act, and would likely be liable.  It is like "receiving stolen goods"
in the non-digital world.

Microsoft has "how to recognize an authorized copy of MS Windows"
blurbs all over place explaining how their holograms and seals are
supposed to look.  They do this in part so courts will find it less
plausible when someone defends themselves by claiming to have been
unaware that some particular copy of Wondows wasn't authorized.

Re: [DISCUSSION] SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?

[MJ Ray]

On 2003-08-23 02:33:12 +0100 John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
Are you saying that you would be amendable to the idea of a DFSG that 
is
slightly modified to make it more applicable to documentation as 
well? 


I am totally opposed to modifying the DFSG.  They are already clearly 
applicable to documentation in Debian in an obvious way.  I would 
support an explanation that made it clear the difference between 
guidelines and examples, and a massively-hyperlinked version that 
specified every word as far as we can.  Some posters claimed to have 
trouble with each of those.


(Considering the differences between software and documentation I 
pointed

out in a previous post)


You seem to have generally declined to consider whether documentation 
in Debian is a subset of software (that is to say: they are different, 
but we can/should treat documentation in Debian as software) and only 
restate that they are not identical (although I am not sure anyone 
claims otherwise).  I apologise if this is unfair and I just missed 
your messages for some reason.


--
MJR/slef   My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
  http://mjr.towers.org.uk/   jabber://[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

[Brian T. Sniffen]

Jacobo Tarrio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>  Third: if we were to enumerate each and every right in the license, it
> would be much longer and more complex (and imagine if we started combining
> the rights "you must not limit the recipient's ability to make and
> distribute new copies of excerpted versions of this document"). Thus, a
> single, simple clause I proposed: "if the format or physical medium this
> work is distributed in limits the recipient's ability to exercise the rights
> given by this license, access to a copy of this work in a format or physical
> medium that allows for the exercise of the rights must be provided".
>
>  That would mean -- if you want to modify it and cannot because you don't use
> Word, you have the right to obtain from your distributor a plain text copy.

So if I distribute any text document in hard copy, I should be
prepared to provide a Braille edition, as well as translations into a
variety of obscure languages?  I don't think that's Free either.  I
like the idea of what you're trying to do, but I think any phrasing of
this requirement is either going to leave loopholes or cover too much:
it will either be exploitable or non-free.  This is a social problem,
and best solved with social means, not with precise technical phrasing.

-Brian

-- 
Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED]
   http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/

Re: Legal status of software licences

[Andrew Suffield]

On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 06:21:56PM +0300, Aigars Mahinovs wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 17:06:39 +0200
> Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Is C doing anything illegal in this case?
> > 
> > No, C isn't, but A and B may well be doing illegal things, depending
> > on the license.
> > 
> > IANAL, though; I could be wrong.
> 
> Well, we can take a bunch of A's and B's and hide them in Taiwan or
> something to do these kind of service for the rest of the world :)

This isn't a new idea; in fact, there are groups in Taiwan which do
just that as a revenue-generating business, although I've never heard
of anybody doing it for computer programs in particular. Son May is
notorious for this; they copy everything from VHS tapes through audio
CDs to DVDs, produce their own packaging, and sell them at low
prices. There are dozens of similar, smaller operations.

In all signatories to the Berne convention, any attempt to import such
products should result in the goods being confiscated by customs. In
the US, importing or knowingly retailing them is also a federal
offence.

-- 
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'  |
   `- -><-  |


pgpHU4fGdHEmF.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Legal status of software licences

[Giacomo A. Catenazzi]

Aigars Mahinovs wrote:


Hello all

I am reading a document by OSDL, namely:
http://www.osdl.org/docs/osdl_eben_moglen_position_paper.pdf

On the third page I read that copyright doesn't limit use of the
product. That the only legal barier to usage of comercial software is
the click trough licence agreement or contracts behind shrinkwrap.
First, is this true?

If it is then I can imagine such scenario:

Hacker A opens the shrinkwrap, and hacks install to disable the licence
agreement and the serial number
Developer B download the resulting install from Donkey and burns a CD
User C gets the CD as a present (or buys it) from B and installs the
programm

Is C doing anything illegal in this case?

He has not opened the shrinkwrap (thus not agreed to the licence
agreement on the box).
He has not agreed to the licence at install time.
He has not copied the software (thus not disturbing copyright law)
He is simply using the software! :)

Please tell me this isn't true!


Maybe.
C is doing something illegal if it know that the copy is not
a legal copy.
Else he can use the copy until someone tell him that it is illegal,
and he can sue B, to have a real/legal copy.

ciao
cate

Re: Legal status of software licences

[Andrew Suffield]

On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 05:38:38PM +0300, Aigars Mahinovs wrote:
> Hello all
> 
> I am reading a document by OSDL, namely:
> http://www.osdl.org/docs/osdl_eben_moglen_position_paper.pdf
> 
> On the third page I read that copyright doesn't limit use of the
> product. That the only legal barier to usage of comercial software is
> the click trough licence agreement or contracts behind shrinkwrap.
> First, is this true?
> 
> If it is then I can imagine such scenario:
> 
> Hacker A opens the shrinkwrap, and hacks install to disable the licence
> agreement and the serial number
> Developer B download the resulting install from Donkey and burns a CD
> User C gets the CD as a present (or buys it) from B and installs the
> programm
> 
> Is C doing anything illegal in this case?
> 
> He has not opened the shrinkwrap (thus not agreed to the licence
> agreement on the box).
> He has not agreed to the licence at install time.
> He has not copied the software (thus not disturbing copyright law)
> He is simply using the software! :)
> 
> Please tell me this isn't true!

Under UK law, C has done nothing wrong and is not at risk of criminal
or civil charges. However, the goods in question may be confiscated.

I believe that under US law, they may be liable under some parts of
the DMCA, if that applies. A judge would probably let them off though,
if they can give a convincing argument that they were unaware of the
actions of A and B.

Other jurisdictions will vary.

-- 
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'  |
   `- -><-  |


pgpJaJZLeoPmy.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Freaky copyright laws [was: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free]

[Andrew Suffield]

On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 12:02:56PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 10:39:02PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 10:29:40PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 04:12:08PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > > I freely admit that this analysis is grounded on U.S.-centric notions of
> > > > reverse engineering and "originality" as a relevant concept to
> > > > copyright.  In other jurisdictions, copyrights more closely resemble
> > > > patents, and independent innovation is no defense to a claim of
> > > > copyright infringement.
> > > 
> > > Good grief, there are jurisdictions where copyright law follows the
> > > first-finder-is-keeper system used by patents? I'm not sure that free
> > > software can work at all with laws like that.
> > > 
> > > Do you have a list? I want to avoid visiting such countries.
> > 
> > I thought basically every place outside the U.S. was like that.  Several
> > times when the U.S. Supreme Court decision of _Feist v. Rural Telephone
> > Service Co._ has come up, it's been ridiculed by some Europeans.
> 
> [I can't think of anything in UK copyright law that would behave this
> way for software].
> 
> I'm pretty certain that reverse engineering is explicitly permitted by
> an EU directive nowadays, which would trump any freaky national laws
> like that.

It's fundamental in EU copyright law anyway:

"A computer program shall be protected if it is original in the sense
that it is the author's own intellectual creation. No other criteria
shall be applied to determine its eligibility for protection."

 -- Directive 91/250/EEC, article 1, paragraph 3

It seems to me that this permits independent innovation (just because
my creation happens to be the same as yours, does not change the fact
that it is my original creation), so we're clear in the US and EU.

While not directly relevant, this is also interesting, from the
preamble:

"Whereas, in respect of the criteria to be applied in determining
whether or not a computer program is an original work, no tests as to
the qualitative or aesthetic merits of the program should be applied"

-- 
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'  |
   `- -><-  |


pgpEnTynkrxgN.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

[Richard Stallman]

At a cost. While I understand the desire for the invariant sections, it
can be wondered what freedom is most desirable: the freedom to run,
study, redistribute and improve for everyone, or the freedom to run,
study, redistribute and improve for only those that agree with your
philosophy, and will not remove it from any accompanying documentation.

The GFDL's permissions apply to everyone, regardless of whether they
agree with philosophy expressed in the invariant sections.  Those who
disagree might choose not to exercise the freedom, but the GFDL does
not deny it to them.

If people disagree with what you say, you should not prohibit them from
doing so.

I agree completely.  The GFDL does not prohibit people from expressing
their own views.  It only says that those who redistribute our manuals
must include our statements of our views.  If they wish, they can also
say they disagree with our views.

> Nowadays we have to struggle constantly against the tendency to bury
> the free software movement and pretend that we advocate "open source".

Is a manual the right place for advocacy? Isn't the purpose of a manual
to document a piece of software?

We try to make everything do multiple duty if possible.

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

[Richard Stallman]

> Nowadays we have to struggle constantly against the tendency to bury
> the free software movement and pretend that we advocate "open source".

"Let those who fight monsters take care lest they themselves become
monsters." - Friedrich Nietzsche

That danger always exists, but it can't be happening here in regard to
invariant sections, because they are not a change.  We've been using
invariant sections in our manuals since at least 15 years ago.

What the GFDL changed in regard to invariant sections was to formalize
the criteria, stating explicitly that sections that cover part of the
manual's topic cannot be invariant, and to increase compatibility by
providing a way to merge manuals with different invariant sections.

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

[Richard Stallman]

Several Debian developers have claimed that they are working with the
FSF to make the GFDL DFSG-free and GPL-compatible, specifically:

I think I see two misunderstandings here.  Just who has misunderstood,
I cannot tell.

First, as far as I have heard, Debian has not yet voted on the
question of which GFDL-covered documents to accept.  I have therefore
been trying to convince Debian developers that the GFDL is a free
license and should be accepted.  Has Debian actually made this
decision?

Second, the FSF is not working on changing the GFDL now.  We intend to
continue to use invariant sections that cannot be removed, as we have
always done.  The only issue being considered (if it is still being
considered) is what decision Debian will make about use of the GFDL.

To make the GFDL somehow compatible with the GPL would be desirable,
but it is not simple.  It would require making a sort of
combined-license with terms like the GPL for software and terms like
the GFDL for documentation.  That raises lots of difficult issues.  At
this point all we have done is begin to think about it in very general
terms.  We won't try to go beyond that until after GPL 3 is ready--and
we're not making much progress on GPL 3 due to lack of manpower.

Re: Freaky copyright laws [was: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free]

[Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet]

Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 10:29:40PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > Good grief, there are jurisdictions where copyright law follows the
> > first-finder-is-keeper system used by patents? I'm not sure that free
> > software can work at all with laws like that.
> > 
> > Do you have a list? I want to avoid visiting such countries.
> 
> I thought basically every place outside the U.S. was like that.  Several
> times when the U.S. Supreme Court decision of _Feist v. Rural Telephone
> Service Co._ has come up, it's been ridiculed by some Europeans.

That talked about databases, which is a separate legal right
that has nothing to do with copyright. And yes, that was purely
a lobbyist push by database producers. 

> Over in Europe, you can copyright a database of obvious facts, even if
> it isn't organized in a clever fashion.  

You do not copyright a database. You claim database rights on
such a database if you can prove a substantial investment in
time, effort or money for its creation. European countries also
have trademarks, which you can get even without being creative
and original. It's a different law.

> This is regarded as
> breathtakingly obvious by the Europeans on this list who are well up on
> EU copyright law, and breathtakingly wrong by Americans on this list who
> are well up on U.S. Copyright law.

That's because most Europeans realize it was a separate Directive
that established database rights. You keep seeing it as a
copyright thing and applying copyright standards. Of course that's
going to produce absurd results. 

Nevertheless, computer programs are definitely not covered by
the database directive and so cannot claim database protection.
That means you're back at the 1991 computer program directive, 
which explicitly puts software under copyright. And independent
re-creation is allowed under European copyright law.

Arnoud

-- 
Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch patent attorney - Speaking only for myself
Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/

Re: Legal status of software licences

[Aigars Mahinovs]

On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 17:06:39 +0200
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Is C doing anything illegal in this case?
> 
> No, C isn't, but A and B may well be doing illegal things, depending
> on the license.
> 
> IANAL, though; I could be wrong.

Well, we can take a bunch of A's and B's and hide them in Taiwan or
something to do these kind of service for the rest of the world :)

-- 
Best regards,
Aigars Mahinovsmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 #--#
 | .''`.|
 |: :' : Debian GNU/Linux& LAKA |
 |`. `'   http://www.debian.org http://www.laka.lv  |
 |  `-  |
 #--#
 


pgpGGIj8JZQag.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Legal status of software licences

[Wouter Verhelst]

Op ma 25-08-2003, om 16:38 schreef Aigars Mahinovs:
> Hello all
> 
> I am reading a document by OSDL, namely:
> http://www.osdl.org/docs/osdl_eben_moglen_position_paper.pdf
> 
> On the third page I read that copyright doesn't limit use of the
> product. That the only legal barier to usage of comercial software is
> the click trough licence agreement or contracts behind shrinkwrap.
> First, is this true?
> 
> If it is then I can imagine such scenario:
> 
> Hacker A opens the shrinkwrap, and hacks install to disable the licence
> agreement and the serial number
> Developer B download the resulting install from Donkey and burns a CD
> User C gets the CD as a present (or buys it) from B and installs the
> programm
> 
> Is C doing anything illegal in this case?

No, C isn't, but A and B may well be doing illegal things, depending on
the license.

IANAL, though; I could be wrong.

-- 
Wouter Verhelst
Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org
Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org
"Stop breathing down my neck." "My breathing is merely a simulation."
"So is my neck, stop it anyway!"
  -- Voyager's EMH versus the Prometheus' EMH, stardate 51462.


signature.asc
Description: Dit berichtdeel is digitaal ondertekend

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

[Joe Moore]

Richard Braakman said:
> On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 06:26:07PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>> In any case, your argument for Invariant Sections applies just as well
>> to  programs as it does to manuals!
>>
>> Would you consider a hypothetical program license to be free if it
>> allowed  'off-topic' text which must be present unmodified in source
>> and object code  of all derived versions, and must be displayed
>> (perhaps through a  command-line option) by every derived program?
>> Maybe you would, in which  case you're consistent.  I wouldn't.
>
> Heh, you choose an interesting example there.
>
> (GPL section 2c -- The Startup Banner)

A better example:

A program that starts up a browser to display http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/
on startup.  The license of the program forbids changing or disabling the
browser code (which is completely unrelated to the program's purpose of
managing local users/passwords), or changing the startup URL.

Is that a free software license?

--Joe

Virus Found in message "That movie"

[Jane Morgan]

Symantec AntiVirus found a virus in an attachment you 
(debian-legal@lists.debian.org ) sent to Jane 
Morgan.

To ensure the recipient(s) are able to use the files you sent, perform a virus 
scan on your computer, clean any infected files, then resend this attachment.


Attachment:  wicked_scr.scr
Virus name: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Action taken:  Quarantine succeeded : 
File status:  Infected



<>

Legal status of software licences

[Aigars Mahinovs]

Hello all

I am reading a document by OSDL, namely:
http://www.osdl.org/docs/osdl_eben_moglen_position_paper.pdf

On the third page I read that copyright doesn't limit use of the
product. That the only legal barier to usage of comercial software is
the click trough licence agreement or contracts behind shrinkwrap.
First, is this true?

If it is then I can imagine such scenario:

Hacker A opens the shrinkwrap, and hacks install to disable the licence
agreement and the serial number
Developer B download the resulting install from Donkey and burns a CD
User C gets the CD as a present (or buys it) from B and installs the
programm

Is C doing anything illegal in this case?

He has not opened the shrinkwrap (thus not agreed to the licence
agreement on the box).
He has not agreed to the licence at install time.
He has not copied the software (thus not disturbing copyright law)
He is simply using the software! :)

Please tell me this isn't true!

-- 
Best regards,
Aigars Mahinovsmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 #--#
 | .''`.|
 |: :' : Debian GNU/Linux& LAKA |
 |`. `'   http://www.debian.org http://www.laka.lv  |
 |  `-  |
 #--#
 

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

[Jacobo Tarrio]

O Luns, 25 de Agosto de 2003 ás 16:23:36 +0300, Richard Braakman escribía:

> But to make a new edition with some spelling errors fixed, you
> definitely need the source.

 Of course.

> (I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.  Are you claiming that
> translations and summaries are all you'll want to do with documentation?)

 No, I was just proposing a way to require source code to be distributed in
a free documentation license, which is (IMO) saner than the one currently in
the GFDL.

-- 

   Tarrío
(Compostela)

Re: Freaky copyright laws [was: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free]

[Richard Braakman]

On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 10:39:02PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I thought basically every place outside the U.S. was like that.  Several
> times when the U.S. Supreme Court decision of _Feist v. Rural Telephone
> Service Co._ has come up, it's been ridiculed by some Europeans.

Can you substantiate that?  I don't remember any such ridicule.

Richard Braakman

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

[Richard Braakman]

On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 06:26:07PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> In any case, your argument for Invariant Sections applies just as well to 
> programs as it does to manuals!  
> 
> Would you consider a hypothetical program license to be free if it allowed 
> 'off-topic' text which must be present unmodified in source and object code 
> of all derived versions, and must be displayed (perhaps through a 
> command-line option) by every derived program?  Maybe you would, in which 
> case you're consistent.  I wouldn't.

Heh, you choose an interesting example there.

c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively
when run, you must cause it, when started running for such
interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an
announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a
notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide
a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under
these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this
License.  (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but
does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on
the Program is not required to print an announcement.)

Richard Braakman

Re: Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy

[Nathanael Nerode]

Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote:

The only "manpower" required should be a clause that allows converting
the document to be under the GPL, much like the clause used in the LGPL.
This would result in the most possible restrictions while still being
GPL compatible.


That would imply giving anyone the permission to modify the GPL, the
LGPL, the GNU manifest, etc. if they are embedded in a manual.
Precisely.  The modified copies would, of course, have to make clear 
that they were not the originals; otherwise they would violate any 
number of laws (libel, fraud, etc...)



As long as they fit under the definition of a ``secondary section''
according to the FDL and are either the license or removeable; I don't  
see a reason not to distribute such ``invariant parts'' in main although  
they are non-free.
"Debian will remain 100% free software."  Users like me would like to be 
able to rely on that.



Please note that this applies to both programs and documentation. It
does not make a difference if the GNU Manifest is included an binary
package or a manual packages: It's not needed for the software (program  
or documentation) to ``work''.
Since you added the caveat that they would have to be removable (which 
GFDL invariant sections *aren't*), I guess this is true.




Claus

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

[Richard Braakman]

On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 01:30:08PM +0200, Jacobo Tarrio wrote:
> O Luns, 25 de Agosto de 2003 ás 13:35:21 +0900, Fedor Zuev escribía:
> 
> > Documentation in not a software. There is no any one-way
> > transformation from the source to the binary. All problems with
> > distribution and modification of documents is a legal, not technical
> > problems.
> 
>  That doesn't matter. To make a derivative of some program, you would
> normally need some human-readable source code. To make a derivative of a
> manual (for example, a translation or a summary), you only need the text.

But to make a new edition with some spelling errors fixed, you
definitely need the source.

(I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.  Are you claiming that
translations and summaries are all you'll want to do with documentation?)

Richard Braakman

Re: Bug#181493: Is the Sun RPC License DFSG-free?

[Joe Drew]

On Sun, 2003-08-24 at 17:03, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 11:39:51AM -0700, Jeff Bailey wrote:
> > We also have essentially the same license with ttf-bitstream-vera.
> 
> IMO, that isn't Free Software, either.

There are no practical restrictions on its freedom; I fail to see how it
isn't free software.

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

[Jacobo Tarrio]

O Domingo, 24 de Agosto de 2003 ás 19:36:20 -0500, Joe Wreschnig escribía:

> How about the GPL v2? "The source code for a work means the preferred
> form of the work for making modifications to it"; binary or object code
> is anything that is not source. I don't see the problem in applying this
> standard all software (meaning programs and documentation).

 Anyway, that wasn't my point.

 First: why have to deal with "source code" or "the preferred form for
modification" when, for some of the rights the GFDL gives, these things are
not even necessary? For example, to translate a document you don't really
need modifiable source code: you only need to be able to read the original
document.

 Second: the "don't use technical measures to limit further copying" clause
is "difficult" because it tries to limit a mechanism, not an intention. What
is someone who "uses technnical measures to limit further copying" trying to
do? Impede that the recipient of the work redistributes new copies. Well,
then why isn't there a clause saying "you must not limit the recipient's
ability to make and distribute new copies of this document"?

 Third: if we were to enumerate each and every right in the license, it
would be much longer and more complex (and imagine if we started combining
the rights "you must not limit the recipient's ability to make and
distribute new copies of excerpted versions of this document"). Thus, a
single, simple clause I proposed: "if the format or physical medium this
work is distributed in limits the recipient's ability to exercise the rights
given by this license, access to a copy of this work in a format or physical
medium that allows for the exercise of the rights must be provided".

 That would mean -- if you want to modify it and cannot because you don't use
Word, you have the right to obtain from your distributor a plain text copy.

-- 

   Tarrío
(Compostela)

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

[Jacobo Tarrio]

O Luns, 25 de Agosto de 2003 ás 13:35:21 +0900, Fedor Zuev escribía:

>   Documentation in not a software. There is no any one-way
> transformation from the source to the binary. All problems with
> distribution and modification of documents is a legal, not technical
> problems.

 That doesn't matter. To make a derivative of some program, you would
normally need some human-readable source code. To make a derivative of a
manual (for example, a translation or a summary), you only need the text.

>   At the very least, if you can read the document, you always,
> technically, can OCR it. An experience shows, that, if you should
> not care about legal requirements (because you has the right from
> license, you OCR public domain or, simply, you do not care about a
> law), it takes no more than 24-48 man\hours to completely OCR a
> large 500-700pages book.  And there always will bee volunteers to do
> that.

 What are you trying to rebute from my "clause" with it? It is more or less
my reasoning: you can translate the book having only a hardcopy of it. Well,
it is even standard practice. If you want to actually modify it -- well, you
may either OCR it, or you may ask the publisher for a modifiable soft copy
of the book.

-- 

   Tarrío
(Compostela)

Re: Freaky copyright laws [was: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free]

[Andrew Suffield]

On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 10:39:02PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 10:29:40PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 04:12:08PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > I freely admit that this analysis is grounded on U.S.-centric notions of
> > > reverse engineering and "originality" as a relevant concept to
> > > copyright.  In other jurisdictions, copyrights more closely resemble
> > > patents, and independent innovation is no defense to a claim of
> > > copyright infringement.
> > 
> > Good grief, there are jurisdictions where copyright law follows the
> > first-finder-is-keeper system used by patents? I'm not sure that free
> > software can work at all with laws like that.
> > 
> > Do you have a list? I want to avoid visiting such countries.
> 
> I thought basically every place outside the U.S. was like that.  Several
> times when the U.S. Supreme Court decision of _Feist v. Rural Telephone
> Service Co._ has come up, it's been ridiculed by some Europeans.

[I can't think of anything in UK copyright law that would behave this
way for software].

I'm pretty certain that reverse engineering is explicitly permitted by
an EU directive nowadays, which would trump any freaky national laws
like that.

-- 
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'  |
   `- -><-  |


pgp7O1nGWoLm1.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Freaky copyright laws [was: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free]

[Andrew Suffield]

On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 09:06:54AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 10:39:02PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > Over in Europe, you can copyright a database of obvious facts, even if
> > it isn't organized in a clever fashion.  This is regarded as
> > breathtakingly obvious by the Europeans on this list who are well up on
> > EU copyright law, and breathtakingly wrong by Americans on this list who
> > are well up on U.S. Copyright law.
> 
> Uh, not really. You can protect databases, but they're not covered by
> copyright law. The protection is available for every group of data which
> is ordered in some fashion (that includes cabinet files filled with
> paper data cards, as long as they're ordered, e.g. in an alphabetical
> way), and it consists of a protection for a period of 15 years after the
> last update to the database, which forbids *complete* reproduction but
> explicitely allows unlimited quoting from the database, as long as you
> mention your sources.
> 
> At least that's how things are in Belgium; there could be little
> differences in other EU members.

Same here, pretty much.

-- 
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'  |
   `- -><-  |


pgpNXLeVtqPJ1.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free

[Andrew Suffield]

On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 04:03:20PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 07:33:41PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > Now, translating this back to the sunrpc case:
> > "But that means you can't distribute the end product under the terms of
> > the GPL, which include (in part 2) the ability to make modifications
> > only taking into account a few random things. Not being able to remove
> > everything but the sunrpc code isn't one of them."
> 
> Nor is "Not being able to change it to look exactly like `solitaire.exe'",
> but you can't do that, either. And yet we can still distribute lots of
> things that you can change to look exactly like `solitaire.exe' under
> the terms of the GPL.

This is essentially false, as Branden has already commented. (Unless
you happen to live in one of those freaky countries where copyright
behaves like patents, but I think we'll have to ignore them)

-- 
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'  |
   `- -><-  |


pgpXqqnCj9ytE.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

[Andrew Suffield]

On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 03:28:28PM +0900, Fedor Zuev wrote:
>   No. Freedom of _distributor_ is not an issue for the free
> software _at_ _all_. No written document says that goal of a free
> software is to promote freedom of a mere distributors (besides, of
> course, the freedom to distribute itself). Free software is about
> the freedom of _users_ and _authors_.

What are you blabbering about? In many jurisdictions, the _only_
people who can be restricted _at all_ by copyright law are the
distributors. The word "copy" in "copyright" is there for a reason.

-- 
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'  |
   `- -><-  |


pgp2LUrTbmb4c.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?

[Andrew Suffield]

On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 04:22:49PM +0900, Fedor Zuev wrote:
>   There, IMHO, is a subtle difference between a creating
> derivative work, and using a part of work in the completely
> unrelated other work. But you, of course, may disagree. I just reply
> to the words, and not try to clairvoyant a thoughts.

You don't get to play word games with "derivative work"; it is
explicitly defined by copyright law. Both of these constitute
derivation.

-- 
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'  |
   `- -><-  |


pgp705S1IIsHN.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

[Josselin Mouette]

Le lun 25/08/2003 à 08:28, Fedor Zuev a écrit :
>   No. Freedom of _distributor_ is not an issue for the free
> software _at_ _all_. No written document says that goal of a free
> software is to promote freedom of a mere distributors (besides, of
> course, the freedom to distribute itself). Free software is about
> the freedom of _users_ and _authors_. It is in the best interest of
> users to receive unstripped version of manual. It is also in the
> best interest of authors. Interest of distributor is non-issue.

Are you trying to assert point 2 of the GFDL doesn't restrict freedom of
users?

You are a completely dumb moron.
-- 
 .''`.   Josselin Mouette/\./\
: :' :   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
`. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  `-  Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom


signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message	numériquement signée

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

[Josselin Mouette]

Le lun 25/08/2003 à 08:38, Sergey V. Spiridonov a écrit :
> Josselin Mouette wrote:
> 
> > Do you realize you are reasoning just like the proprietary software
> > folks the FDL is supposedly meant to fight ?
> 
> There is a basic difference between free software foundation folks and 
> proprietary software folks. But both try to use practical and ethical 
> reasoning. As Josselin Mouette said:
> 
>  > Can't you understand nobody would ask for removing these sections if
>  > they were as free as the FSF would like to call them ?
> 
> This is a good example of the freedom, which is not used. So, why not to 
> take away it? GPL does similar things, it takes away the freedom of 
> using proprietary code with the GPL code from user. But we got something 
> in exchange - wide free software and documentation spreading.

GPL doesn't take away freedom. It is a copyleft, full stop. As long as
you respect the copyleft, you are free to do anything you want with the
software. There is no limitation in what you can do, the limitation is
on how you have to do it.

The GFDL is very different. It adds restrictions you often find in
proprietary software: discrimination against fields of endeavour,
restrictions on modification.

> I do not think Debian can safely ignore proprietary software existence, 
> as some people on this list do[1]. If the world would be 
> black-and-white, I will put FDL on the white side of the black-and-white 
> world, together with GPL, FSF, Debian.

We are not talking about color of things. We are talking about their
DFSG-freeness.

> While we discussing FDL, clearly non-free software is still disributed 
> by Debian.

I already answered on that specific issue [1], are you *again* trying to
move the discussion to a completely unrelated point?

 [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200308/msg00771.html
-- 
 .''`.   Josselin Mouette/\./\
: :' :   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
`. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  `-  Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom


signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message	numériquement signée

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

[Josselin Mouette]

Le lun 25/08/2003 à 06:35, Fedor Zuev a écrit :
>   At the very least, if you can read the document, you always,
> technically, can OCR it. An experience shows, that, if you should
> not care about legal requirements (because you has the right from
> license, you OCR public domain or, simply, you do not care about a
> law), it takes no more than 24-48 man\hours to completely OCR a
> large 500-700pages book.  And there always will bee volunteers to do
> that.

And you can always modify a binary because it is possible to edit the
assembly code.

Once again, you have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about.
-- 
 .''`.   Josselin Mouette/\./\
: :' :   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
`. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  `-  Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom


signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message	numériquement signée

Re: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?

[Josselin Mouette]

Le lun 25/08/2003 à 09:22, Fedor Zuev a écrit :
> When you try to apply license outside of its scope you should expect
> to receive funny results. GFDL has a very narrow scope. It is bad.
> But it is different problem.

No, it is exactly one of the problems. Have you ever read the DFSG?
-- 
 .''`.   Josselin Mouette/\./\
: :' :   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
`. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  `-  Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom


signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message	numériquement signée

Re: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?

[Matthew Garrett]

Fedor Zuev wrote:
>   There, IMHO, is a subtle difference between a creating
>derivative work, and using a part of work in the completely
>unrelated other work. But you, of course, may disagree. I just reply
>to the words, and not try to clairvoyant a thoughts.

There may well be. It remains a useful freedom.

>   Heh. A very carefully crafted example. One step left or
>right and you will not get your example.

That's sort of the point.

>When you try to apply license outside of its scope you should expect
>to receive funny results. GFDL has a very narrow scope. It is bad.
>But it is different problem.

The GFDL may only be intended for documentation and the like, but if I
want to use sections of material released under it elsewhere I'm obliged
to use it. As has been pointed out, on occasion the result of this is
that I can't release a combination of GFDL material under the GFDL,
which means I can't release it at all. This is plainly stupid. From a
pragmatic point of view, even if I could do so the combination of
invarient sections I may be forced to distribute may render the result
useless. It's a bad license, and it's a non-Free license.

-- 
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

[David Starner]

Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But if you take Acrobat, remove, say, the Adobe EULA, and
> distribute the rest, it will be censorship or, at least, very
> similar. Because you conceal from users the information from
> creator, that they reasonable expect to receive from you. Against
> the will both the user and creator. 

First, let's be honest here. The number of users who will be annoyed
by the wasted disk space probably outnumber the number of users who
want the GNU manifesto attached to every GNU manual. It is in the
nature of users to be pragmatic. The number of users who really
want to see the Adobe EULA is much lower. Furthermore, the Adobe
EULA, being a license document, is moot.

Taken to the extreme, a program which happens to search through your 
files for porn and emails it back to the upstream is performance art, 
and therefore should not be touched. More classic free speech would
be a program that pops up a box if you run it on a non-free system
and reads to you the GNU manifesto before letting you do anything. 
Would we tolerate that as free software? I sure wouldn't. 

If an author wants to tack his lecture onto his free manual for free 
software, I expect the same rights, to delete the annoying and
space-wasting parts. More importantly, what happens when Joe Bob's
pop-mail 0.1 becomes ESR's fetchmail 179.3? Free software means that
can happen; but your definition won't let that happen for free
documentation, because Joe Bob hated guns and put a thirty page
manifesto to that effect in his 'free' documentation, making it
unusable for ESR's fetchmail. I guess ESR could toss in a thirty
page manifest about how guns are good, but I'd rather not see
a flame war in my manual.

That is the nature of free software and free documentation, 
to put Debian under our control, to let things go beyond
one solitary point of control and one opinion.

> It may, also, be copyright infringement, of course.

That's why we're having this argument, because we can't go around
breaking licenses. Duh. 


__
Do you want a free e-mail for life ? Get it at http://www.email.ro/

Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy

[Jérôme Marant]

Quoting Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> On Mon, 2003-08-25 at 03:18, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> > Quoting Dylan Thurston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > 
> > > > etc/emacs.1:under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License,
> Version
> > > 1.1
> > > > ...
> > 
> > Requesting removal of GNU Emacs manpages now? Better move Emacs to
> > non-free.
> 
> Or take a free version of the Emacs (say, from Emacs 20, if that's the
> case), and include it. I doubt command line options have changed much.

This is stupid, isn't it?

> > > Not too mention all the clearly non-free cruft under etc/ (including
> > > various essays, like etc/LINUX-GNU, allowing only verbatim copying).
> > > See Bug #154043.
> > 
> > This "cruft" doesn't hurt and is not likely to be modified (who's gonna
> > modify RMS speeches and GNU Manifesto?).
> 
> Someone who wants to publish them in a book? Convert them to HTML?

I'm sure there wouldn't be any problem with it.

> Excerpt large portions of them for an article?

It is common to ask permission for quoting someone speeches. Even to
give an article for reviewal before publishing it. But we are out of
the scope of software freedom.
 
> > It is neither documentation
> > nor program (considering that documentation is part of software now).
> 
> Those of us saying that everything Debian distributes is software will
> continue to say it here - this is software. It's very very simple
> software, all it does is instructor an interpreter like less or cat to
> draw characters to a a terminal. But it's software, even if it's not a
> "program" or documentation for a program.

Let's play fair now:

>From WordNet (r) 1.7 :

  software
   n : (computer science) written programs or procedures or rules
   and associated documentation pertaining to the operation
   of a computer system and that are stored in read/write
   memory; "the market for software is expected to expand"

I do not consider those files are "associated documentation". They
do not document the program they come with, unlike the manual.

> > Removing such files won't make Debian more free, IMO.
> 
> We might as well add non-free programs that no one wants to modify to
> main, too. It won't make Debian any less free.
> 
> I think qmail would make a great first package for this new "if I don't
> want to modify it, it's free no matter what" policy; I hear it's written
> so expertly that the author doesn't want anyone else perverting his
> "vision" of the code.

No, qmail is non-free software and would not go into Debian.

-- 
Jérôme Marant

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

[Wouter Verhelst]

On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 05:10:48PM +0900, Fedor Zuev wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Aug 2003, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> >Le dim 24/08/2003 ? 21:44, Fedor Zuev a ?crit :
[me:]
> >> >If people disagree with what you say, you should not prohibit them
> >> >from doing so. You're still a well-known person who can reasonably
> >> >assume that what you write or say will not go unnoticed. Even if
> >> >it's removed from one distribution of a manual.
> >>I cannot see any connection between disagreement with anyone
> >> opinion, and the right to censor somebody else's opinion, so
> >> angrily demanded by you.
> >>
> >>But, since these demands and these sophisms repeated only on
> >> this list only in the last several days several times already, I
> >> should conclude, that FSF was completely right, when included
> >> counter-censorship measures in its license.
> 
> >Can't you understand nobody would ask for removing these sections
> >if they were as free as the FSF would like to call them ?
> 
>   I do not know the man named Nobody.  I can believe that
> personally _you_ will never remove sections from documentation you
> distribute just because you disagree with author. Even the majority
> of debian developers will not do that.
> 
>   But Wouter Verhelst, to whom letter I reply, clearly stated
> otherwise. And, this letter was not first, even on this list.

I wouldn't be so sure I stated that so clearly. I said people should
have the right to do so, if they would want to; but I never suggested I
would.

Check your facts next time, please.

> >OH MY GOD, WE DON'T INCLUDE ACROBAT IN DEBIAN MAIN, THIS IS
> >*CENSORSHIP*, WE HAVE NO RIGHT TO EXCLUDE IT FROM DISTRIBUTION!
> 
>   No. If you do not include Acrobat at all, it will not a
> censorship. Nobody expect from you to distribute everything.

Exactly. We're not expected to distribute computer programs or their
documentation if we feel the license doesn't fit in our DFSG.

Since we feel this is the case for the GFDL (well, at least most of us
do), we're not expected to distribute any GFDL'ed document.

You were saying?

>   But if you take Acrobat, remove, say, the Adobe EULA, and
> distribute the rest, it will be censorship or, at least, very
> similar.

We're not doing that. I suggested people should have the right to remove
non-essential parts of a manual. They could have legitimate reasons for
that, but currently, the GFDL doesn't allow them to do so.

The alternative is to not distribute the parts of the software that are
licensed under the GFDL. Which is something entirely different from
'removing the Adobe EULA from its distribution'.

> Because you conceal from users the information from
> creator, that they reasonable expect to receive from you. Against
> the will both the user and creator. It may, also, be copyright
> infringement, of course.

That is not of our concern. What is copyright infringement, and what is
not, is defined by the license. If the license clearly states that it is
OK to remove non-essential information, or to modify the software in
another way, there is no copyright infringement. If the license states
that such is not allowed, the software cannot go in main, and there will
be no copyright infringement either.

-- 
Wouter Verhelst
Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org
Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org
"Stop breathing down my neck." "My breathing is merely a simulation."
"So is my neck, stop it anyway!"
  -- Voyager's EMH versus the Prometheus' EMH, stardate 51462.


pgpPoBFzZLGqH.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

[David Starner]

Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Documentation in not a software.

This has been refuted so many times. What about help2man, which turns software
into documentation? What about the numerous other times documentation is 
embedded into source code or source code is embedded into documentation?
What about literate programming?

> There is no any one-way transformation from the source to the binary.

It so happens that I do a lot of work for Project Gutenberg, and have
experience in this matter. Our output - no output I've seen to anything
meaningfully called source - is not convertable into the original. We lose
a lot of book related detail, and even stuff that may or may not be relevant
like fonts and font sizes. The original in this digital age is maybe the 
result of a lossy conversion from an original that was marked up with content
orientated tags to a paper format or a more presentation orientated format. 
HTML -> ASCII loses information and has no reliable reverse transformation 
even for the information it doesn't loose.

On the flip side, the transformation from the source to the binary for 
programs is not one-way. You can turn that binary back into source - look 
at dozens of Java disassemblers, and the theory is the same for any 
source->binary language.

> if you can read the document, you always, technically, can OCR it.

No. OCR programs only work at DPIs and quality levels much higher then
the human threshold. And only if they can get images, which is may
be hard to do for a proprietary reader. 72 or 100 DPI isn't high
enough to OCR from, anyway.

> it takes no more than 24-48 man\hours to completely OCR a 
> large 500-700pages book.

For a simple novel, yes. A computer software manual would be much
harder. How long would it take to turn ls back into
a reasonable facsimile of the source code? Probably not a whole lot 
longer, given a skilled programmer. A simple quantitive difference
does not a qualitative difference make.


__
Do you want a free e-mail for life ? Get it at http://www.email.ro/

Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy

[Joe Wreschnig]

On Mon, 2003-08-25 at 03:18, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> Quoting Dylan Thurston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 
> > > etc/emacs.1:under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version
> > 1.1
> > > ...
> 
> Requesting removal of GNU Emacs manpages now? Better move Emacs to
> non-free.

Or take a free version of the Emacs (say, from Emacs 20, if that's the
case), and include it. I doubt command line options have changed much.

> > Not too mention all the clearly non-free cruft under etc/ (including
> > various essays, like etc/LINUX-GNU, allowing only verbatim copying).
> > See Bug #154043.
> 
> This "cruft" doesn't hurt and is not likely to be modified (who's gonna
> modify RMS speeches and GNU Manifesto?).

Someone who wants to publish them in a book? Convert them to HTML?
Excerpt large portions of them for an article?

> It is neither documentation
> nor program (considering that documentation is part of software now).

Those of us saying that everything Debian distributes is software will
continue to say it here - this is software. It's very very simple
software, all it does is instructor an interpreter like less or cat to
draw characters to a a terminal. But it's software, even if it's not a
"program" or documentation for a program.

> Removing such files won't make Debian more free, IMO.

We might as well add non-free programs that no one wants to modify to
main, too. It won't make Debian any less free.

I think qmail would make a great first package for this new "if I don't
want to modify it, it's free no matter what" policy; I hear it's written
so expertly that the author doesn't want anyone else perverting his
"vision" of the code.
-- 
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


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

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

[Fedor Zuev]

On Sun, 24 Aug 2003, Josselin Mouette wrote:

>Le dim 24/08/2003 ? 21:44, Fedor Zuev a ?crit :
>> >If people disagree with what you say, you should not prohibit them
>> >from doing so. You're still a well-known person who can reasonably
>> >assume that what you write or say will not go unnoticed. Even if
>> >it's removed from one distribution of a manual.
>>
>>  I cannot see any connection between disagreement with anyone
>> opinion, and the right to censor somebody else's opinion, so
>> angrily demanded by you.
>>
>>  But, since these demands and these sophisms repeated only on
>> this list only in the last several days several times already, I
>> should conclude, that FSF was completely right, when included
>> counter-censorship measures in its license.

>Can't you understand nobody would ask for removing these sections
>if they were as free as the FSF would like to call them ?

I do not know the man named Nobody.  I can believe that
personally _you_ will never remove sections from documentation you
distribute just because you disagree with author. Even the majority
of debian developers will not do that.

But Wouter Verhelst, to whom letter I reply, clearly stated
otherwise. And, this letter was not first, even on this list.

>OH MY GOD, WE DON'T INCLUDE ACROBAT IN DEBIAN MAIN, THIS IS
>*CENSORSHIP*, WE HAVE NO RIGHT TO EXCLUDE IT FROM DISTRIBUTION!

No. If you do not include Acrobat at all, it will not a
censorship. Nobody expect from you to distribute everything.

But if you take Acrobat, remove, say, the Adobe EULA, and
distribute the rest, it will be censorship or, at least, very
similar. Because you conceal from users the information from
creator, that they reasonable expect to receive from you. Against
the will both the user and creator. It may, also, be copyright
infringement, of course.

(Hypothetical ability to receive this information from the other
sources is completely irrelevant here. Majority of even
goverment-censored information can be accesed from the legitimate
sources. If you exactly know, what and where to find.)

Re: Bug#181493: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free

[Don Armstrong]

On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Andreas Barth wrote:
> So, this license is specific to be used only as "part of a product or
> programm". 

You're missing the key phrase on which Branden's argument (and mine)
is based on: 'developed by the user'

This phrase read conservatively (eg. reserving the rights not
specifically granted by the license to the copyright holder) indicates
that those who do not develop a product or a program containing SunRPC
do not have permision to license or distribute SunRPC code.

If someone can dig up where Sun clarifies the meaning of the license
to mean MIT/X11+not alone, (or better, just MIT/X11) that would
indicate that Sun was merely sloppy on the wording of the license.

Furthermore, as a slight nitpick, the 'part of a product or program
developed by the user' only applies to distribution or licensing, not
modification, copying, or use.


Don Armstrong

-- 
"There's no problem so large it can't be solved by killing the user
off, deleting their files, closing their account and reporting their
REAL earnings to the IRS."
 -- The B.O.F.H..

http://www.donarmstrong.com
http://www.anylevel.com
http://rzlab.ucr.edu


pgpL1zyjdo1u4.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy

[Jérôme Marant]

Quoting Dylan Thurston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> > etc/emacs.1:under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version
> 1.1
> > ...

Requesting removal of GNU Emacs manpages now? Better move Emacs to
non-free.

> Not too mention all the clearly non-free cruft under etc/ (including
> various essays, like etc/LINUX-GNU, allowing only verbatim copying).
> See Bug #154043.

This "cruft" doesn't hurt and is not likely to be modified (who's gonna
modify RMS speeches and GNU Manifesto?). It is neither documentation
nor program (considering that documentation is part of software now).
Removing such files won't make Debian more free, IMO.

-- 
Jérôme Marant

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

[Don Armstrong]

On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Fedor Zuev wrote:
> Documentation in not a software. There is no any one-way
> transformation from the source to the binary.

In many cases, such as TeX source to pdf, there's a one way
transformation with loss of information. (Comments are lost, internal
reference names are lost. In fact, any information not included in the
final binary is lost. [By definition.])

In fact, it's really rare for there to be a non-trivial transformation
that doesn't loose information.

> At the very least, if you can read the document, you always,
> technically, can OCR it.

At the very least, if you can use the software, you always,
technically, can dissassemble it.

> So, GFDL really needed only one requrement: forbidding to place
> further legal restriction on the format of derivative work.
> 
> But, BTW, I do not see how these restrictions in the current GFDL
> any more restrective than similar restrictions in GPL.

Your line of reasoning in these two sentences is well hidden.

Exactly what are you trying to claim in regards to the GFDL and its
relationship to the GPL?


Don Armstrong

-- 
If a nation values anything more than freedom, it will lose its
freedom; and the irony of it is that if it is comfort or money it
values more, it will lose that, too.
 -- W. Somerset Maugham

http://www.donarmstrong.com
http://www.anylevel.com
http://rzlab.ucr.edu


pgprwsnmfEje5.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Bug#181493: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free

[Andreas Barth]

* Branden Robinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030824 23:35]:
> On Sat, Aug 23, 2003 at 06:50:19PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > I'm personally concerned about this particular phrase, as it seems to
> > > preclude Debian from distributing software with Sun RPC in it unless
> > > Debian itself is developing the product or program using Sun RPC.
> > 
> > Which we are, viz "The Debian Distribution".
> 
> ...which means the license violates either DFSG 5, DFSG 6, or DFSG 8.

Wrong.

> If the fact that we *are* "the Debian Project" or *are* a group of
> "developers of products or programs" are facts that render us compliant
> with the license, then the license is not DFSG-free.

No. If the fact that we are the *Debian* Project would allow us the
use, it would violate DFSG 8. But in fact we're allowed to use it
because we are the Debian *Project*. This is _not_ Debian specific, as
we would also allowed to use it under the very same conditions if we
are a big money making company, or are the Gentoo Project, or ...

So, this license is specific to be used only as "part of a product or
programm". This is not worse than the Artistic License. There is no
hint or even proof that this License is Debian-specific, so it
complies to DFSG 8. (That I would like another license more is not
topic of discussion. Topic is whether the RPC-code complies to DFSG,
or if distribution glibc is a RC-bug.)


Cheers,
Andi
-- 
   http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
   PGP 1024/89FB5CE5  DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F  3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C

Re: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?

[Fedor Zuev]

On Sun, 24 Aug 2003, Joe Wreschnig wrote:

>On Sun, 2003-08-24 at 13:37, Fedor Zuev wrote:
>> On Sat, 23 Aug 2003, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> >This still fails - as a result of the use of invariant sections, I
>> >am unable to use content from one piece of documentation in another
>> >piece of documentation under the same license under certain
>> >circumstances. I'm not aware that this is true of anything we
>> >regard as DFSG Free.
>>
>>  License incompatability is not an unusual thing for the free
>> software licenses.

>Reread what he said. He cannot use content from one document in
>another document *under the same license as the first one*. This is
>because the Invariant secondary section in the first document might
>not be secondary in the second document, and so cannot be
>Invariant, and so cannot be used. Nor can any section that is
>attached to the invariant section (that is, any other section in
>the work).

There, IMHO, is a subtle difference between a creating
derivative work, and using a part of work in the completely
unrelated other work. But you, of course, may disagree. I just reply
to the words, and not try to clairvoyant a thoughts.

>For example, say I wanted to use parts of the GCC manual to write a book
>"The History of Free Compilers". The GNU Manifesto is now clearly a
>non-secondary section, since it's obviously immediately related to the
>history of free compilers. So, I can't use any of the GCC manual in
>writing it.

Heh. A very carefully crafted example. One step left or
right and you will not get your example.

But, do you believe that your "History of Free Compilers" is
a "manual, textbook, or other functional and useful document"? GFDL
says:

---
The purpose of this License is to make a manual, textbook, or other
functional and useful document "free" in the sense of freedom: <...>

We have designed this License in order to use it for manuals for
free software, because free software needs free documentation:<...>

We recommend this License principally for works whose purpose is
instruction or reference.
---

When you try to apply license outside of its scope you should expect
to receive funny results. GFDL has a very narrow scope. It is bad.
But it is different problem.


>Saying this is a "license incompatibility" is like saying I can't
>integrate Windows source into the Linux kernel because it's a license
>incompatibility. Strictly, it is, but no one would ever call it that
>because the "incompatibility" is so great that we classify Windows as
>non-free and stop caring about it at all.

Yes, exactly. You can't integrate Windows source into the
Linux kernel just because of license incompatibility. Windows source
is also non-free, but this is a different (however related) matter.

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

[Joe Wreschnig]

On Mon, 2003-08-25 at 01:38, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> Josselin Mouette wrote:
> 
> > Do you realize you are reasoning just like the proprietary software
> > folks the FDL is supposedly meant to fight ?
> 
> There is a basic difference between free software foundation folks and 
> proprietary software folks. But both try to use practical and ethical 
> reasoning. As Josselin Mouette said:
> 
>  > Can't you understand nobody would ask for removing these sections if
>  > they were as free as the FSF would like to call them ?
> 
> This is a good example of the freedom, which is not used. So, why not to 
> take away it?

What the hell? "Not many people are using this freedom, so let's just
take it away." Ignoring the fact that many people on this list have
proposed many reasons why the freedom to remove them *is* desirable, the
idea "I don't use my freedom so I'll get rid of it" is the second
dumbest thing I've read in 24 hours, after accusations of Debian's
"censorship" of documents.

I never used my freedom to modify /bin/du - let's take that away, too.
/bin/less hasn't been changed since January, and I remember it working
fine for 7 years before that (and I'm told before that, too); I think we
don't need freedom to modify it anymore, either.

> I do not think Debian can safely ignore proprietary software existence, 
> as some people on this list do[1]. If the world would be 
> black-and-white, I will put FDL on the white side of the black-and-white 
> world, together with GPL, FSF, Debian.
> 
> While we discussing FDL, clearly non-free software is still disributed 
> by Debian.

While Debian is working hard to maintain a complete free software
operating system, clearly non-free software is being advocated by you,
and published by the Free Programs-But-Not-Documentation Foundation.
-- 
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


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

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

[Joe Wreschnig]

On Mon, 2003-08-25 at 01:28, Fedor Zuev wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Aug 2003, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> 
> >Le dim 24/08/2003 ? 14:57, Sergey V. Spiridonov a ?crit :
> >> BTW, I understand, FDL with invariant section infringements freedoms of
> >> the distributor, as Debian. Distributor is the last instance where the
> >> software package can be modified before it will be delivered to user.
> >> Distributor have more control of the package contents in this case. So
> >> FDL shifts control over specific parts of the documentation to software
> >> author.
> 
> >Do you realize you are reasoning just like the proprietary software
> >folks the FDL is supposedly meant to fight ?
> 
>   No. Freedom of _distributor_ is not an issue for the free
> software _at_ _all_. No written document says that goal of a free
> software is to promote freedom of a mere distributors (besides, of
> course, the freedom to distribute itself). Free software is about
> the freedom of _users_ and _authors_.

No, free software is about freedom for *everyone*, regardless of stupid
labels *you* invent. I'm a "user", "author", and "distributor"; do I
only need 1/3rd as much freedom as a normal user? I sure hope not.

> It is in the best interest of users to receive unstripped version of
> manual.

It is also in the best interest of users to recieve a manual they can
use, modify, and distribute, like they want, provided they prevent no
one else from doing so.

> It is also in the best interest of authors.

Except the GFDL takes freedom away from authors. What it *adds* is not
freedom, but control - the original author of the document is exercising
control over all subsequent authors and users.

> Interest of distributor is non-issue.

So go start your own undistributable GNU/Linux distribution. As a
distributor, Debian doesn't consider our interest a non-issue.

Your arguments get stupider with each new message of yours I read. Let's
fix that.

*plonk*
-- 
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


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

Re: Freaky copyright laws [was: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free]

[Wouter Verhelst]

On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 10:39:02PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Over in Europe, you can copyright a database of obvious facts, even if
> it isn't organized in a clever fashion.  This is regarded as
> breathtakingly obvious by the Europeans on this list who are well up on
> EU copyright law, and breathtakingly wrong by Americans on this list who
> are well up on U.S. Copyright law.

Uh, not really. You can protect databases, but they're not covered by
copyright law. The protection is available for every group of data which
is ordered in some fashion (that includes cabinet files filled with
paper data cards, as long as they're ordered, e.g. in an alphabetical
way), and it consists of a protection for a period of 15 years after the
last update to the database, which forbids *complete* reproduction but
explicitely allows unlimited quoting from the database, as long as you
mention your sources.

At least that's how things are in Belgium; there could be little
differences in other EU members.

The rationale for this is that it takes quite an effort to create a
substantially large database, just as it takes quite an effort to write
a computer program or an essay, and that this deserves protection
equally well. The difference, however, is that the protection for
databases hasn't gone mad the way copyright law has (i.e., it's still 15
years, no more).

-- 
Wouter Verhelst
Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org
Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org
"Stop breathing down my neck." "My breathing is merely a simulation."
"So is my neck, stop it anyway!"
  -- Voyager's EMH versus the Prometheus' EMH, stardate 51462.


pgp3TrAugLhwR.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

[Fedor Zuev]

On Sun, 24 Aug 2003, Josselin Mouette wrote:

>Le dim 24/08/2003 ? 14:57, Sergey V. Spiridonov a ?crit :
>> BTW, I understand, FDL with invariant section infringements freedoms of
>> the distributor, as Debian. Distributor is the last instance where the
>> software package can be modified before it will be delivered to user.
>> Distributor have more control of the package contents in this case. So
>> FDL shifts control over specific parts of the documentation to software
>> author.

>Do you realize you are reasoning just like the proprietary software
>folks the FDL is supposedly meant to fight ?

No. Freedom of _distributor_ is not an issue for the free
software _at_ _all_. No written document says that goal of a free
software is to promote freedom of a mere distributors (besides, of
course, the freedom to distribute itself). Free software is about
the freedom of _users_ and _authors_. It is in the best interest of
users to receive unstripped version of manual. It is also in the
best interest of authors. Interest of distributor is non-issue.

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

[Fedor Zuev]

On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Jacobo Tarrio wrote:

>> drawn to the condition "You may not use technical measures to obstruct
>> or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or
>> distribute."
>> If "make or" were stricken, and perhaps some clarification added to
>> ensure that secure transport channels between distributor and
>> distributee were not a problem, this particular problem might go away.

> Or if this condition and the "transparent format" stuff were changed to say
>something to the effect to "if you distribute this work in a format that
>obstructs the exercise of the rights given by this license, you must provide
>a way for its recipient to get a full copy of the work in a format that
>doesn't obstruct the exercise of these rights".

All these reqirements is completely miss the point, IMHO,
and, therefore, completely unneeded.

Documentation in not a software. There is no any one-way
transformation from the source to the binary. All problems with
distribution and modification of documents is a legal, not technical
problems.

At the very least, if you can read the document, you always,
technically, can OCR it. An experience shows, that, if you should
not care about legal requirements (because you has the right from
license, you OCR public domain or, simply, you do not care about a
law), it takes no more than 24-48 man\hours to completely OCR a
large 500-700pages book.  And there always will bee volunteers to do
that.

So, GFDL really needed only one requrement: forbidding to
place further legal restriction on the format of derivative work.







But, BTW, I do not see how these restrictions in the current GFDL
any more restrective than similar restrictions in GPL.

Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?

[Tore Anderson]

[ Take #2;  hoping to hit -legal this time, as my first attempt to
  reply somehow ended up on -devel.  Caffeine underrun, probably. ]

* Branden Robinson

 > Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2
 >
 >   Please mark with an "X" the item that most closely approximates your
 >   opinion.  Mark only one.
 >
 >   [ X ]  The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published
 >  by the Free Software Foundation, is not a license compatible
 >  with the Debian Free Software Guidelines.  Works under this
 >  license would require significant additional permission
 >  statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this
 >  license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for
 >  inclusion in the Debian OS.
 >
 >   [   ]  The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published
 >  by the Free Software Foundation, is a license compatible
 >  with the Debian Free Software Guidelines.  In general, works
 >  under this license would require no additional permission
 >  statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this
 >  license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for
 >  inclusion in the Debian OS.
 >
 >   [   ]  The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published
 >  by the Free Software Foundation, can be a license compatible
 >  with the Debian Free Software Guidelines, but only if certain
 >  restrictions stated in the license are not exercised by the
 >  copyright holder with respect to a given work.  Works under
 >  this license will have to be scrutinized on a case-by-case
 >  basis for us to determine whether the work can be be considered
 >  Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS.
 >
 >   [   ]  None of the above statements approximates my opinion.
 >
 > Part 2. Status of Respondent
 >
 >   Please mark with an "X" the following item only if it is true.
 >
 >   [   ]  I am a Debian Developer as described in the Debian
 >  Constitution as of the date on this survey.

-- 
Tore Anderson

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

[Sergey V. Spiridonov]

Josselin Mouette wrote:


Do you realize you are reasoning just like the proprietary software
folks the FDL is supposedly meant to fight ?


There is a basic difference between free software foundation folks and 
proprietary software folks. But both try to use practical and ethical 
reasoning. As Josselin Mouette said:


> Can't you understand nobody would ask for removing these sections if
> they were as free as the FSF would like to call them ?

This is a good example of the freedom, which is not used. So, why not to 
take away it? GPL does similar things, it takes away the freedom of 
using proprietary code with the GPL code from user. But we got something 
in exchange - wide free software and documentation spreading.


I do not think Debian can safely ignore proprietary software existence, 
as some people on this list do[1]. If the world would be 
black-and-white, I will put FDL on the white side of the black-and-white 
world, together with GPL, FSF, Debian.


While we discussing FDL, clearly non-free software is still disributed 
by Debian.


[1] probably, those people profess non-resistance to evil ;)

--
Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov.

Re: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free

[Anthony Towns]

On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 07:33:41PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> Now, translating this back to the sunrpc case:
> "But that means you can't distribute the end product under the terms of
> the GPL, which include (in part 2) the ability to make modifications
> only taking into account a few random things. Not being able to remove
> everything but the sunrpc code isn't one of them."

Nor is "Not being able to change it to look exactly like `solitaire.exe'",
but you can't do that, either. And yet we can still distribute lots of
things that you can change to look exactly like `solitaire.exe' under
the terms of the GPL.

Cheers,
aj

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

   ``Is this some kind of psych test?
  Am I getting paid for this?''


pgpFzJqyDaI8N.pgp
Description: PGP signature