Re: in-depth information about how piman views publications vs. software vs. documentation

[Joe Wreschnig]

On Wed, 2003-08-27 at 21:50, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2003-08-28 03:41:47 +0100 Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I use "documentation" in the strictest sense here
> > [...] free publication license. Sorry for the confusion.
> 
> "Documentation" is not a subset of "publication" to you?  A new twist 
> on an old flamefest.

I never said that.

This is also totally irrelevant to the FDL debate, but, just to clarify:

I consider documentation (at least on a computer) to be a subset of
software. However, I don't consider the GPL a documentation license, but
a software license. The GPL can be applied to documentation, but
non-documentation too, though.

I consider documentation (on a computer) to be a subset of publications
(on a computer). I don't consider the OPL to be documentation license
for the same reason the GPL is not a documentation license. The OPL can
be applied to documentation, but non-documentation too, though (however,
a smaller set of non-documentation than the GPL can).

I consider documentation (on a computer) to be *the* set of
documentation (on a computer). For this reason, I feel the GFDL is a
documentation license. Because of the nature of the GFDL's terms, I
don't feel it can be applied to non-documentation at all; if you try,
most of the clauses stop making sense.

I tend to refer to licenses by the most general category of works I feel
they can consistently license. I also don't refer to any works not on a
computer, because they are completely outside the scope of anything the
Debian project does.
-- 
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


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

[mdadams@ece.uvic.ca: Re: JasPer licensing wrt Debian Linux]

[Chris Cheney]

I got the following email back from Michael.  So with the clarification
below that it is not allowed to use the JPEG-2000 part of the code for
non-standards based work make it non DFSG free? If so is there anyway to
make it DFSG free and still uphold their wishes as stated below?

Thanks,

Chris Cheney

- Forwarded message from Michael Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -

Envelope-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivery-date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 20:17:19 -0500
From: Michael Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-X-Sender: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Chris Cheney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: JasPer licensing wrt Debian Linux
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.3 required=5.0
tests=BAYES_20,EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,IN_REP_TO,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,
  REPLY_WITH_QUOTES,USER_AGENT_PINE,X_AUTH_WARNING
autolearn=ham version=2.55
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.55 (1.174.2.19-2003-05-19-exp)

On Fri, 22 Aug 2003, Chris Cheney wrote:
> I am the maintainer of KDE for Debian Linux and it came to my attention
> that KDE 3.2 adds support for JasPer. However, it has been previously[0]
> determined that JasPer does not meet the DFSG guidelines[1] for free
> software so cannot be included as is in the main part of Debian. The
> particular part that the -legal people have a problem with is section F.
> Is it possible for you to strike this section of the license?

Dear Chris:

The license has been revised slightly in recent months, but I have not
released a new version of the software with this revised license.  Clause F
reads as follows in the revised version of the license:

F.  The JPEG-2000 codec implementation included in the JasPer software
is for use only in hardware or software products that are compliant
with ISO/IEC 15444-1 (i.e., JPEG-2000 Part 1).  No license or right to
this codec implementation is granted for products that do not comply
with ISO/IEC 15444-1.

There are two reasons for the above clause:

1) The technology used in the JPEG-2000 standard is covered by
patents.  The patent holders (for which there are several) are only
allowing their patented technology to be used for implementations
that are compliant with the standard.  For this reason, if anyone
uses a hacked non-JPEG-2000-compliant version of JasPer's
JPEG-2000 codec in their software, they would be breaking the law.
As an extra level of legal protection for the contributors to
JasPer, we explicitly disallow ILLEGAL patent-infringing use of the
software.  [Incidentally, to the best of my knowledge, none of the
JasPer contributors hold patents on core JPEG-2000 technologies.]

2) We do not want hacked non-JPEG-2000-compliant versions of JasPer
being used, since this would cause major interoperability problems,
totally defeating the purpose of having an international
image-compression standard in the first place.

If your lawyers are worried, they really ought not to be.  We (i.e.,
the JasPer contributors) do not have any secret evil motivations behind
Clause F in the JasPer license.  This clause is only to prevent ILLEGAL
non-interoperable use of the JasPer software.

The original wording of Clause F did not make clear that JasPer can be
used to build non-JPEG-2000 products.  For example, you can remove the
JPEG-2000 codec support from JasPer and create a product without
JPEG-2000 support without violating the terms of the JasPer license.
What this clause does say is: IF YOU USE THE JPEG-2000 CODEC IN JASPER,
then you must not introduce changes to the codec that would cause it
to be NONCOMPLIANT with the JPEG-2000 standard.  If you did this, you
would be infringing on at least several patents.

With the above said, is the JasPer license really not not good
enough for your purposes?  I mean, why would KDE want to use JasPer's
JPEG-2000 support in order to create a mutant non-interoperable
JPEG-2000 clone that infringes on at least several patents?

Sincerely,
Michael

---
Michael Adams, Assistant Professor
Dept. of Elec. and Comp. Engineering, University of Victoria
P.O. Box 3055 STN CSC, Victoria, BC, V8W 3P6, CANADA
Tel: +1 250 721 6025, Fax: +1 250 721 6052, Office: EOW 403
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED], Web: www.ece.uvic.ca/~mdadams


- End forwarded message -


pgp7XpyVSmRQ6.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

[Brian T. Sniffen]

"Sergey V. Spiridonov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> > The GNU FDL, like the proprietary licenses I mentioned as examples,
> > offers a trade.  Unlike the MIT/X11 license or the GNU GPL, the GNU
> > FDL does not only grant permissions to the user: it offers to trade
> > him some permissions in exchange for some freedoms.
> > The particular trade it offers is non-free.
> 
> Do I understand you correctly?

I don't think so:

> Copyright law grants some permissions. GPL grants some additional
> permissions and does not put additional restrictions.

Copyright law restricts some freedoms: copyright is not an inherent
right, but a government-granted right of control.  The GPL lifts some
of those restrictions, imposing none of its own.

> Do you state that any license like FDL, which puts additional
> restrictions on user is non-free disregarding of additional
> permissions it grants?

Certainly any additional permissions it grants don't make a
difference.  There may be some infinitesimal additional restriction
which does not make an otherwise Free license non-Free... but I cannot
think of any.  I doubt they exist.

> Such point of view on freedom is dependent on the copyright law.

No, any given work may have slightly different restrictions in
different domains of copyright law, but from looking at a license to
see whether it tries to restrict the user or free the user, it's
still not to hard to classify it as Free or non-Free.

-Brian

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

[Brian T. Sniffen]

MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> On 2003-08-28 01:28:54 +0100 Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > "Enjoy" is not a term I would use to describe the process of
> > experiencing, say, Derrida's _Limited Inc._, but if that work were
> > freely licensed, I would certainly be able to access, read, and
> > otherwise "use" it.
> 
> The trouble is to exclude "use" in the "fair use" sense of copying it
> for republication.  "Enjoy" seemed a good word, as in "right to quiet
> enjoyment" that is a fairly unrelated legal phrase.  Probably there's
> a better one.

Indeed, I started with "documentation" and switched to "text" as more
general; it's hard to keep the sentence structure so close using the
word "work."  "Content" sounds good, so far.

-Brian

Re: How to get around the GFDL (under UK law, at least)

[David B Harris]

On 28 Aug 2003 03:50:16 +0100
Scott James Remnant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> You now have a copy of the latest upstream documentation under the
> original DFSG-free licence, and entirely legally too.

I don't particularily condone this kind of "work-around". It goes
against the wishes of the copyright holder. If they want to license
their work in a non-Free manner, then THAT IS THEIR RIGHT. Literally ;)


pgprL53GOTeWd.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: GNU FDL makes "difference files" useless

[David B Harris]

On 28 Aug 2003 03:22:47 +0100
Scott James Remnant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -(which makes passes at compilers) written 
> +(which makes passes at compilers) written
> 
> the difference is in the trailing whitespace, but that's irrelevant.
> 
> These changes were made to part of an Invariant section of the GNU Emacs
> manual, that's relevant.
> 
> What's also relevant is that anybody running 'cvs update' on their
> source and receiving this patch; and as this occurred just before the
> 21.3 release, anyone applying a "difference file" to their source rather
> than downloading the new complete distribution; broke the following term
> of the GNU Free Documentation License.

I agree that this is an ambiguous case; one side would want to convince
the judge that the user was the one making the modification. The other
side would want to convince the judge that it was the copyright holder
distributing the new file, using their distribution method of choice.

So the question then becomes, "are there any judges out there who would
consider 'cvs update' from the copyright holder's distribution point
user modification as opposed to copyright holder distribution?"

It's irritating that we're forced to honestly consider what lawyers and
judges would say because of bad wording and gray areas of the license,
but if we're going to do so let's do it realistically.

Any lawyers around want to comment on the above question?


pgpUvekDeR8BO.pgp
Description: PGP signature

How to get around the GFDL (under UK law, at least)

[Scott James Remnant]

Sorry for the 3 GFDL-related e-mails in a row, but I discussed some of
this stuff with my solicitor today, who I was seeing on an entirely
unrelated matter but who quite enjoys these little discussions we have.

His opinion is that the following is entirely legal and breaches neither
Copyright or the licence of the documentation, in the UK at least.

1. Locate your upstream's CVS repository, and locate the revision at
   which the licence of the documentation was changed to the GFDL.

2. Checkout the revision before that.

You now have a copy of the documentation licenced under a hopefully
DFSG-free licence, if you don't what was it doing in Debian in the first
place, eh, eh? :)

3. Request the patch from that revision to the next.

  a. This patch will hopefully be solely the licence change.

  b. You have no permission to change the licence text in the
 documentation file(s) you hold on your hard drive.

  c. Therefore you may not apply this patch, throw it away.

4. Request the patch from the revision containing the licence change to
   the HEAD.

  a. This patch should not include any licence changes.

  b. This patch simply includes changes to the documentation.

  c. This patch is an *entirely*separate* work to the documentation
 file(s) it modifies.

i. The patch file is implicitly copyrighted by the upstream author.

   ii. The patch file includes no terms allowing copying,
   modification, distribution, etc.

  iii. It is, however, perfectly legal to /use/ this patch, either by
   performing the actions it suggests by hand or with a program
   such as "patch".

   iv. The resulting modifications to the documentation text, even
   though they are the result of the instructions of the separate
   work, fall under the licence of the documentation text which
   allows such modification.

5. Apply this patch to your documentation file(s).


You now have a copy of the latest upstream documentation under the
original DFSG-free licence, and entirely legally too.

Scott
-- 
Have you ever, ever felt like this?
Had strange things happen?  Are you going round the twist?


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

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

[MJ Ray]

On 2003-08-28 03:41:47 +0100 Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

I use "documentation" in the strictest sense here
[...] free publication license. Sorry for the confusion.


"Documentation" is not a subset of "publication" to you?  A new twist 
on an old flamefest.


--
MJR/slef   My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

[Scott James Remnant]

On Wed, 2003-08-27 at 23:09, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:

> Brian T. Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 
> > But the FSF is exploiting its monopoly position with regard to Emacs
> > to do things which it does not permit further distributors to do.  The
> > Emacs manual claims to be part of Emacs, but only the FSF, as the
> > copyright holder of both works, can distribute a combined work of
> > Emacs and the Emacs Manual.  I cannot distribute a package consisting
> > of Emacs and Brian's GFDL'd Emacs Manual, because the GPL does not
> > permit me to link my GFDL'd text&code with Emacs.
> 
> Don't worry. This will be "solved" in GPLv3 ...
> 
Ya know, I was always sure that "or (at your option) any later version"
header people blindly add to their source would turn out to be a Bad
Thing.

Imagine... GPLv3 with Invariant Sections... Microsoft take Linux and add
a bunch of code to it, maybe something really handy like the ability to
run Win32 apps natively.  But there's a catch, their code checks with a
server that the user has sold their first-born to MS first.  They then
mark the whole lot Invariant.

Or maybe something a little more down-to-earth.  A vendor takes a
popular GPL application and adds their own features inside a .o file. 
But you can't modify that!  Oh, it's Invariant, I couldn't anyway.


RMS's attempt at separating the "free software" ideals from the
"open source" ideals seems to be working, but not as he intended.  "Open
source" seems much more attractive now, after all, the very
definition[0] of "open source" states:

The license must allow modifications and derived works, and
must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as
the license of the original software.

Whereas the FSF[1] don't believe in allowing modification anymore,
unless it's to a bit the copyright holder doesn't mind being changed, of
course.

Scott

[0] http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php
[1] perhaps they should change their name to the NFDF?
-- 
Have you ever, ever felt like this?
Had strange things happen?  Are you going round the twist?


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

Re: Re: A possible GFDL compromise

[MJ Ray]

On 2003-08-27 22:17:27 +0100 David Starner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

For example, the computer software become copyrightable only
in the late 70-s - early 90-s, after 30+ years of free existense.

And if that were not true, it's unlikely we'd have the Internet Age as
we know it. If there were no copyright law on software, there would
be few general purpose computers available to consumers [...]


I think both of these are buggy.  I think Fedor's message might not be 
true everywhere and David's deals with an alternative history.  It is 
even possible that if any unrelated event happened, it's equally 
unlikely we'd have the Internet Age as we know it.  It's hard to work 
out the likelihoods without using beliefs, as we only have one run of 
the experiment.


--
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

[Joe Wreschnig]

On Wed, 2003-08-27 at 19:35, Branden Robinson wrote:
> [Joe, I don't think RMS is subscribed to -legal.]

I'm pretty sure he's not, which is why he was in my To: line, which is
what I've been consistently doing. If this is a problem I'll move
non-list addresses to Cc:, but I usually only use Ccs if I expect the
other party to be interested in reading but not necessarily
participating. Since my comment was a direct response to RMS, I consider
To: the appropriate header.

(Feel free to quote netiquette/RFCs at me, because I might be outright
wrong.)

> On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 03:39:11PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> > Just because the FSF is the first to release a free documentation
> > *license*, doesn't mean it was the first to come up with free
> > documentation *criteria*.
> 
> Even that is not true.  The "OPL" (Open Publication License), predates
> the GNU FDL.
> 
> The GNU FDL was written in part as a reaction to the OPL.

I use "documentation" in the strictest sense here, referring only to
instructions on using computer programs. AFAIK, the OPL was intended to
be a generic free publication license. Sorry for the confusion.
-- 
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


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

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

[David B Harris]

On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 08:51:36 +0900 (IRKST)
Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >"of the copies you *make or distribute*"
> >
> >Emphasis mine. The language is pretty clear.
> 
> ---/text/dossie/gfdl/fdl.txt--
> 
> You may copy and distribute the Document in any medium, either
> commercially or noncommercially, provided that this License, the
> copyright notices, and the license notice saying this License
> applies to the Document are reproduced in all copies, and that you
> add no other conditions whatsoever to those of this License.  You
> may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or
> further copying of the copies you make or distribute.  However, you
> may accept compensation in exchange for copies.  If you distribute a
> large enough number of copies you must also follow the conditions in
> section 3.
> 
> --
> 
> 
>   Is there a such big difference between "copy" and "make
> copies"?

Implicit in the first half of that paragraph is "you must follow the
terms of this license."

Therefore, section 2 is still in effect. We cannot use *any tecnical
measures* to control further distribution of any copies we make (ie: 'cp
gfdl-doc.txt gfdl-doc-2.txt') or distribute (ie: 'scp gfdl-doc.txt
friend-computer:~friend/gfdl-doc.txt').

The difference in between "make a copy" and "distribute a copy" is
pretty clear. By specifying _both_ (as opposed to just distribution,
which would be bad enough in itself, see my second example in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>), that means for all
intents and purposes making a copy for myself is the same as sending a
copy to somebody else. In other words, I'm distributing it to myself.

Even if this weren't the case (ie: it only specified distribution), the
consequences would still be pretty bad. Certainly onerous and non-Free.


pgpWlGFOEgh2o.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Re: Decision GFDL

[MJ Ray]

On 2003-08-27 22:19:06 +0100 Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Nevertheless, lack of something that can be pointed to as "official" 
[...]


Have ftpmasters rejected any FDL-licensed works yet?


[...]  Otherwise, vital packages like glibc are going to have
release-critical bugs.


Don't they already have them?  They just might not be reported yet.


So, I would suggest that you guys approve a motion stating
1. What the problem is: the GFDL is non-DFSG-compliant if invariant 
sections 
are used (other than in whatever special cases you wish to enumerate);


Drop everything after "compliant".


2. Nevertheless you will permit the existing manuals to go into sarge;


Passing this would indicate a majority of DDs supporting violation of 
Debian's Social Contract, surely?



3. You urge the FSF to work with you to settle this issue amicably.


This has always been true for most, I think.

I don't think the line that there is consensus on debian-legal will 
wash, 
unless you overrule the sarge release masters and take the manuals 
out now.


It depends.  How many FDL-licensed works have reached testing?  How 
many of those were at least as buggy in woody?  On the one hand, I 
could see sarge being an improvement on the freeness of woody, but I 
wonder if this could be dealt with totally for sarge, if DPL, RM and 
DDs are willing.


--
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

[MJ Ray]

On 2003-08-28 01:28:54 +0100 Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:

"Enjoy" is not a term I would use to describe the process of
experiencing, say, Derrida's _Limited Inc._, but if that work were
freely licensed, I would certainly be able to access, read, and
otherwise "use" it.


The trouble is to exclude "use" in the "fair use" sense of copying it 
for republication.  "Enjoy" seemed a good word, as in "right to quiet 
enjoyment" that is a fairly unrelated legal phrase.  Probably there's 
a better one.



But yeah, I do lean towards going whole hog.  There are lots of things
in Debian other than computer programs and documentation.


Hey, I know.  Why don't we s/text/software/?

I'll get me coat.
--
MJR/slef   My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

[Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker]

Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, David B Harris wrote:
[...]
>> make *or* distribute
[...]
>  copy *and* distribute
[...]
> copy *and* distribute
[...]
> copy *and* distribute
[...]
> make *or* distribute
[...]
> Is there a such big difference between "copy" and "make copies"?

No, but there's a world of difference betwen "and" and "or".

-- 
ilmari

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

[Fedor Zuev]

On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, David B Harris wrote:

>> >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.
>>
>>  Heh. And, according to the same logic, you should not lock
>> the door of your home, because someone may want to copy document
>> from your desktop. Get real!
>>
>>  GFDL says about _further_ distribution of already received
>> work, not about initial copying you may allow or not allow to
>> someone. But, ever regardless of particular terms of license it is
>> clear from the law, that you can have any obligations only to the
>> _legitimate_ recipient of a copy of work. If someone get a copy by
>> the means, which is illegal itself, without your will, consent and
>> ever awareness, this can't create for you any obligations to him.

>"of the copies you *make or distribute*"

>Emphasis mine. The language is pretty clear.

-/usr/share/common-licenses/GPL---

  1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's
-
source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you
conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate
copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the
notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any
warranty; and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of
this License along with the Program.
<...>

  2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any
portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy
 -
and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section
--
1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:

a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices
stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.

b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
parties under the terms of this License.

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

--

---/text/dossie/gfdl/fdl.txt--

You may copy and distribute the Document in any medium, either
commercially or noncommercially, provided that this License, the
copyright notices, and the license notice saying this License
applies to the Document are reproduced in all copies, and that you
add no other conditions whatsoever to those of this License.  You
may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or
further copying of the copies you make or distribute.  However, you
may accept compensation in exchange for copies.  If you distribute a
large enough number of copies you must also follow the conditions in
section 3.

--


Is there a such big difference between "copy" and "make
copies"?

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

[Branden Robinson]

[Joe, I don't think RMS is subscribed to -legal.]

On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 03:39:11PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> Just because the FSF is the first to release a free documentation
> *license*, doesn't mean it was the first to come up with free
> documentation *criteria*.

Even that is not true.  The "OPL" (Open Publication License), predates
the GNU FDL.

The GNU FDL was written in part as a reaction to the OPL.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson| It just seems to me that you are
Debian GNU/Linux   | willfully entering an arse-kicking
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | contest with a monstrous entity
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | that has sixteen legs and no arse.


pgpeOYmTNhy1e.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Re: Decision GFDL

[Adam Warner]

On Thu, 2003-08-28 at 09:19, Joe Buck wrote:
> My role in this: I'm not a Debian developer, but I am a member of the 
> GCC steering committee.  Our manual is GFDL, and almost all of our
> developers are unhappy about it.  We're running into legal issues with
> things like doxygen-generated libstdc++ documentation (is it even
> distributable if it combines GPL and GFDL text?).

Joe there is another potential solution and it does not require an
approved motion nor changing the minds of the release managers.

You could contact Debian's GCC developers on the debian-gcc mailing list
(), explain the situation and ask
them to work on moving GCC's documentation into non-free as soon as
possible (assuming distribution of "doxygen-generated libstdc++
documentation" is possible--but regardless the GFDL source has to be
separated out).

With the cooperation of Debian's GCC developers this can happen before
the release of Sarge. Sarge's Release Critical policy defines what will
absolutely stop a release happening. Any bugs not considered release
critical can still be fixed.

If you encounter resistance--e.g. a Debian developer is adamant that
your manual is free--then simply ask the developer to take it up with
the debian-legal mailing list.

Regards,
Adam

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

[Branden Robinson]

On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 06:11:32PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
> 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.
> 
> Such things are very hard to estimate.  What is clear is that one does
> not use a viewer program to read a manual published on paper.

If one is blind, and does not have access to a Braille version of the
manual in question, one might do that very thing.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson| There's nothing an agnostic can't
Debian GNU/Linux   | do if he doesn't know whether he
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | believes in it or not.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Graham Chapman


pgpCne0RN6l4v.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

[Branden Robinson]

On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 11:40:27PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2003-08-27 21:14:42 +0100 Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> wrote:
> >I would only suggest s/text/content/, so that non-texual material
> >(illustrations and so forth) are also unambiguously covered.
> 
> "content" is rather, uh, vague.  How about going the whole hog and 
> doing s/read/enjoy/ in the first one, and s/text/work/ everywhere?

"Enjoy" is not a term I would use to describe the process of
experiencing, say, Derrida's _Limited Inc._, but if that work were
freely licensed, I would certainly be able to access, read, and
otherwise "use" it.

But yeah, I do lean towards going whole hog.  There are lots of things
in Debian other than computer programs and documentation.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson|  Never underestimate the power of
Debian GNU/Linux   |  human stupidity.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |  -- Robert Heinlein
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |


pgpx1IYC1JMiJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Debian logo DFSG-freeness

[Don Armstrong]

On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Note that under US trademark law, no use is so pathetic that it isn't
> worth wasting your time on: if you're aware of an infringing use, and
> you make no effort to enforce your trademark, this sets a legal
> precedent that will come back to haunt you later when someone
> infringes in a manner you *do* care about.

Exactly. I'm sorry if that wasn't totally clear from the first two
paragraphs in my response. [I probably was a bit too circuitous.]

If for some reason we don't proceed with a trademark infringment
against this website, copyright will be our only recourse against any
other site or usage.


Don Armstrong

-- 
It seems intuitively obvious to me, which means that it might be wrong
 -- Chris Torek

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


pgp3i8c0KLBd5.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

[Don Armstrong]

On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, Richard Stallman wrote:
> 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.
> 
> Such things are very hard to estimate.  What is clear is that one
> does not use a viewer program to read a manual published on paper.

Ignoring of course, the viewer program known as the human brain, which
is arguably more complex than any other type of viewer program out
there.


Don Armstrong

-- 
All bad precedents began as justifiable measures.
 -- Gaius Julius Caesar in "The Conspiracy of Catiline" by Sallust

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


pgp0KzLPmeEJD.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Re: Decision GFDL

[Richard Braakman]

On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 02:19:06PM -0700, Joe Buck wrote:
> I don't think the line that there is consensus on debian-legal will 
> wash, unless you overrule the sarge release masters and take the
> manuals out now.

I don't mean to pick on you, I've just seen a number of similar
statements.

I hope people realize that the release team is saying "This is not
release critical", and not "This is not a bug".  I had a terrible
time trying to get people to understand the difference, when I
was release manager :)

One thing I'm curious about and which I'm too sleepy to investigate
now: were any of these manuals already under the GFDL in woody?

Richard Braakman

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

[Sergey V. Spiridonov]

Brian T. Sniffen wrote:

> I'm going to proceed as if that's correct -- say so if it's not.

Thank you for taking time to correct my English.



The GNU FDL, like the proprietary licenses I mentioned as examples,
offers a trade.  Unlike the MIT/X11 license or the GNU GPL, the GNU
FDL does not only grant permissions to the user: it offers to trade
him some permissions in exchange for some freedoms.

The particular trade it offers is non-free.


Do I understand you correctly?

Copyright law grants some permissions. GPL grants some additional 
permissions and does not put additional restrictions.


Do you state that any license like FDL, which puts additional 
restrictions on user is non-free disregarding of additional permissions 
it grants?


Such point of view on freedom is dependent on the copyright law.
--
Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

[Anthony DeRobertis]

On Wednesday, Aug 27, 2003, at 10:33 US/Eastern, Sergey Spiridonov 
wrote:


The same thing is with FDL. If Debian users and maintainers do not 
need the freedom to remove political statements in most cases (for 
example Manifesto from Emacs), they can agree with invariant sections 
in documenation.


That is a discussion for -project.

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

[Anthony DeRobertis]

On Wednesday, Aug 27, 2003, at 08:19 US/Eastern, Fedor Zuev wrote:



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?


1) It should be compilable with any compiler used for
compilation of ls.


Just like a large manifesto in a document should be in the same 
character set and language as the document.



2) (not sure for ls but usual problem). It should not
contain bugs, which can be exploited.


Just like said manifesto should not contain bugs (e.g, factual 
inaccuracies, grammar problems, etc.). I don't think there are any 
security worries with adding a --hangman option to ls.

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

[Richard Braakman]

On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 03:14:42PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I would only suggest s/text/content/, so that non-texual material
> (illustrations and so forth) are also unambiguously covered.

Hmm.  It's a good idea, but I would suggest s/text/document/ instead.
"content" is overused by our enemies, the ones who want to take the
products of the human mind and sell then like sausages :)

Generic "free content" freedoms should probably apply to things like
musical performance as well, and I don't see these fitting very fell
for that.

Richard Braakman

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

[Anthony DeRobertis]

On Wednesday, Aug 27, 2003, at 07:13 US/Eastern, Fedor Zuev wrote:



--- http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/free-sw.html ---

Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy,


You do realize that document is not what we're discussing here, right? 
Since that document is a most marginally relevant, I hesitate to 
discuss it here, but...



They can use, improve and distribute it by all useful means.


Unless the part the want to improve happens to be an invariant section, 
for example.



Removing of secondary section from manual can't be count nor
as improvement, nor as adaptation of manual.


Thank you for begging the question, or at least one of them.

Would you like to offer some support as to why removing (or changing) 
secondary sections can't be an improvement?


For example, suppose a document has many pages of secondary sections. 
There are many reasons that removing those sections could be an 
improvement:

o I would like to save on printing costs
o I need to take a hardcopy of the document with me, and I would
  like to save on weight.[0]
o I am mailing hard copies of the document, and want to save on
  postage.
o The numerous secondary sections get in the way of the primary
  material, and removing them makes the document clearer.

There are numerous reasons changing them could be an improvement, too. 
As an obvious one, the FSF's address has changed in the past.


Removing things from documents, like programs, can be a major 
improvement.



Removing a section from document does not create autiorship
for derivative work, btw. Because, "the copyright in a compilation
or derivative work extends only to the material _contributed_ by the
author of such work" (USC T17 S103). If you not contribute anything,
you is not an author, regardless of how much you removed.


Not true. You need to look at Sec. 101, as well to understand this 
paragraph:


"A ''compilation'' is a work formed by the collection and assembling of 
preexisting materials or of data that are selected, coordinated, or 
arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes 
an original work of authorship.  The term ''compilation'' includes 
collective works."


I get a copyright on my compilation if my selection of pieces to 
include, the way I arrange them, etc. in a way to create an original 
work. The paragraph you quote above just says that my copyright on the 
compilation only extends to the selection, arrangement, etc. of the 
compiled words; not to the compiled works themselves.


i.e., it is not a violation of my compilation copyright to copy one of 
the works I compiled together. It would be to copy the entire 
compilation.




[0] If you've seen the sheer volume of some books, I hope you can 
understand why the weight of them can be important.

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

[Anthony DeRobertis]

On Wednesday, Aug 27, 2003, at 04:11 US/Eastern, Fedor Zuev wrote:


GFDL says about _further_ distribution of already received
work, not about initial copying you may allow or not allow to
someone.


"You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading 
or further copying of the copies you make or distribute."


make OR distribute, not make AND distribute.

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

[Anthony DeRobertis]

On Wednesday, Aug 27, 2003, at 00:52 US/Eastern, Fedor Zuev wrote:


I aware. Yes, distinction is often unclear.

But this is irrelevant. It is enough that _law_ (majority of
existed copyright laws) makes this difference.


The copyright laws of the United States, Russia, the European Union, 
Japan; the Berne Convention; etc., have little if any to do with our 
principles.


The Social Contract gives our principles. One of those is that Debian 
will remain entirely free software, with free software defined by the 
DFSG.


Strictly speaking, we are only concerned with the definition of 
"software" used in the Social Contract. What it means in copyright law, 
if anything (it isn't used in the US's Title 17, for example), is not 
relevant.




There are _many_ OCR programs in the world. There is _no_
x86-disassembler, which assure compilable output, in the world.


Nor is there an OCR program that can assure 100% correct output, 
either. But that's not really relevant.


Perhaps you should discussing this kind of stuff --- changing the 
social contract --- on -project.

Re: Debian logo DFSG-freeness

[Steve Langasek]

On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 01:40:43PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> Now, I have no clue how US copyright and trademark law interacts with
> Sweden's trademark and copyright law... so a reasonable middle of the
> road approach might be to ask them nicely to consider changing their
> logo.

> Alternatively, we can completely ignore it and decide that their
> little site is so pathetic that it isn't worth wasting our time on.
> That's not really my call to make.

Note that under US trademark law, no use is so pathetic that it isn't
worth wasting your time on: if you're aware of an infringing use, and
you make no effort to enforce your trademark, this sets a legal
precedent that will come back to haunt you later when someone infringes
in a manner you *do* care about.

-- 
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer


pgpCa22p3sDBe.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

[MJ Ray]

On 2003-08-27 21:14:42 +0100 Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:

I would only suggest s/text/content/, so that non-texual material
(illustrations and so forth) are also unambiguously covered.


"content" is rather, uh, vague.  How about going the whole hog and 
doing s/read/enjoy/ in the first one, and s/text/work/ everywhere?


--
MJR/slef   My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
The hand of senility is upon the thingy above your arm.

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

[Richard Stallman]

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.

Such things are very hard to estimate.  What is clear is that one does
not use a viewer program to read a manual published on paper.

Virus Found in message "Approved"

[Ronald S. Brakke]

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

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:  your_details.pif
Virus name: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Action taken:  Clean failed : Quarantine succeeded : 
File status:  Infected



<>

Virus Found in message "That movie"

[Ronald S. Brakke]

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

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:  thank_you.pif
Virus name: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Action taken:  Clean failed : Quarantine succeeded : 
File status:  Infected



<>

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

[Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS]

Brian T. Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> But the FSF is exploiting its monopoly position with regard to Emacs
> to do things which it does not permit further distributors to do.  The
> Emacs manual claims to be part of Emacs, but only the FSF, as the
> copyright holder of both works, can distribute a combined work of
> Emacs and the Emacs Manual.  I cannot distribute a package consisting
> of Emacs and Brian's GFDL'd Emacs Manual, because the GPL does not
> permit me to link my GFDL'd text&code with Emacs.

Don't worry. This will be "solved" in GPLv3 ...

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

[David Starner]

> May be user will decide not to use Emacs at all, if he will
> know, that Emacs and Manifesto written by the same man. (Btw, this
> if a far more usual and far more honest behavior, than strip
> Manifesto and continue to use it)

Maybe he will decide not to use sendmail if he knows that it
was written by a homosexual, or music123 if he knows that it
was written by an atheist. That doesn't mean that we have
to send some documentation along with sendmail or music123 that
indicates the author's beliefs. Even the GFDL doesn't require
that we ship the Manifesto with Emacs - it requires that we ship
the Manifesto with the documentation.

> According to my understanding of your words, all that a bit
> stricter than public domain is not free. And even a bit of
> discrimination toward proprietary OS makes software non-free. Right?

No. And I have no idea where you would get that idea.

> Please excuse me, but I do not believe that "let things go
> beyond one solitary point of control and one opinion" is the
> official position of any free software organisation and,
> particularly, the Debian Project.

The DFSG says that _anyone_ can change free software and redistribute
and use free software for _any_ purpose.




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

Re: Re: Decision GFDL

[Joe Buck]

On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 08:48:17PM +0200, Wouter Vanden Hove wrote:
> Where can I find the actual Debian-decision on the GNU Free
> Documentation License?

Branden Robinson writes:
> There has been no formal statement issued by the developers, but Debian
> seldom bothers with such things.  We go years without issuing
> non-technical position statements under clause 4.1.5 of our Consitution,
> and most of the time our license DFSG-analysis process is relatively
> uncontentious.

Nevertheless, lack of something that can be pointed to as "official" has 
allowed
RMS to remain in his state of denial.  It would also appear that if the 
consensus
(that the GFDL in the form that it is used for the GNU manuals violates 
the DFSG),
then the announced policy of the release gods that this will be ignored 
for the

sarge release seems problematic.

Given this, it would seem reasonable for the Debian developers to 
formally decide
what they are going to do, since it would appear that a temporary waiver 
of a part
of the DFSG is needed.  Otherwise, vital packages like glibc are going 
to have

release-critical bugs.

So, I would suggest that you guys approve a motion stating

1. What the problem is: the GFDL is non-DFSG-compliant if invariant 
sections are

   used (other than in whatever special cases you wish to enumerate);
2. Nevertheless you will permit the existing manuals to go into sarge;
3. You urge the FSF to work with you to settle this issue amicably.

I don't think the line that there is consensus on debian-legal will 
wash, unless

you overrule the sarge release masters and take the manuals out now.

My role in this: I'm not a Debian developer, but I am a member of the 
GCC steering

committee.  Our manual is GFDL, and almost all of our developers are unhappy
about it.  We're running into legal issues with things like 
doxygen-generated
libstdc++ documentation (is it even distributable if it combines GPL and 
GFDL

text?).

Re: Re: A possible GFDL compromise

[David Starner]

Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>  If we would have the old, 1904-1912-style copyright laws,
> there would be much less problems with copyright.
> 
>   For example, the computer software become copyrightable only
> in the late 70-s - early 90-s, after 30+ years of free existense.

And if that were not true, it's unlikely we'd have the Internet Age as
we know it. If there were no copyright law on software, there would
be few general purpose computers available to consumers, because no
company is going to write a program, just for eveyone else to copy it
legally as they will. (You'll note that few companies release code 
under the BSD, except hardware companies.) Much better to produce a
dedicated word processor that's much harder to copy. 

It's not a change to the spirit of the law; it's a change to the letter
of the law to deal with new issues.


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

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

[Sergey V. Spiridonov]

Josselin Mouette wrote:

Debian users and maintainers agree with such limitations because they do 
not need this freedom in most cases (the freedom to include GPL code 
into the proprietary code and to distribute binary result).



THIS - IS - NOT - A - LIMITATION.


Your upper case was so convincing, that I go to www.dict.org to check 
once more, what is limitation.



You can do *whatever you want* with GPL'ed code, technically speaking.
Redistributing a modified version as a proprietary product, but there is
no restriction on producing this version. Only a restriction on *how*
you distribute it.


So, I do not get your point, is there a *limitation* on redistributing a 
modified version as a proprietary product? Or you can do *whatever you 
want*? I do not think there could be answer "yes" to both questions.


The same thing is with FDL. If Debian users and maintainers do not need 
the freedom to remove political statements in most cases


In most cases? So if we need a freedom only sometimes, we don't really
need to be strict about it.


I inserted "in most cases" to be consistent with my statement about GPL. 
GPL can't be perfectly applicable to software in some rare cases. An 
example is Guile license. I assume there could be cases[1], where FDL 
can not be perfectly applicable to the documentation.


[1] - none of them I read on debian-legal

> Oh, but we already agree with such limitations. In the non-free section.

That's tricky ;)

--
Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov

Re: Debian logo DFSG-freeness

[Don Armstrong]

On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Alfie's post reminds me that I need clarification on some point: the
> fact that the Debian logo, which is shipped within many of our packages,
> is not DFSG-free.
> It was already raised:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200111/msg00041.html
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200209/msg00192.html
> but I don't see any statement on how this should be dealt with.

Assuming we want to preserve the sanctity of the logo, someone would
need to retain legal council, and have them write a cease and desist
to whoever or whatever was using the logo improperly. (My father
typically calls these things nasty-grams, but you get the point.)

If we don't want to bother defending it, then it won't be an exclusive
mark, so our only recourse would be to use copyright law to keep
people from using it. [They could still use a similar logo, but they'd
have to make it from scratch.]

Now, I have no clue how US copyright and trademark law interacts with
Sweden's trademark and copyright law... so a reasonable middle of the
road approach might be to ask them nicely to consider changing their
logo.

Alternatively, we can completely ignore it and decide that their
little site is so pathetic that it isn't worth wasting our time on.
That's not really my call to make.


Don Armstrong

-- 
N: Why should I believe that?"
B: Because it's a fact."
N: Fact?"
B: F, A, C, T... fact"
N: So you're saying that I should believe it because it's true. 
   That's your argument?
B: It IS true.
-- "Ploy" http://www.mediacampaign.org/multimedia/Ploy.MPG

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


pgpyWRGGHwvYh.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Debian logo DFSG-freeness

[MJ Ray]

On 2003-08-27 18:23:49 +0100 Josselin Mouette 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



Alfie's post reminds me that I need clarification on some point: the
fact that the Debian logo, which is shipped within many of our 
packages,

is not DFSG-free.


I agree.  This seems not to be free software, as it tries to use a 
copyright licence to do a trademark's job.

1. Are there bugs open on this?
2. Do we have a list of packages using this work?
3. Can it be relicensed painlessly?

--
MJR/slef   My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

[Joe Wreschnig]

On Wed, 2003-08-27 at 11:40, Richard Stallman wrote:
> We are the ones who first started to say that documentation should be
> free, and we are the ones who first wrote criteria for free
> documentation.

I don't see how this is relevant. If the first person to write criteria
for free software had decided that Microsoft's Shared Source license was
free, would that have made it free? Of course not. Freedom doesn't come
by simply calling something free, but by actually granting rights.

This is also untrue. The intention of the Debian Free Software
Guidelines from the start has been to apply to everything in Debian;
programs, documentation, images, and so on. This is the only
interpretation of them that is consistent with the Debian Social
Contract, and Bruce Perens has clarified that this is what he intended
when he was writing them. Just because the FSF is the first to release a
free documentation *license*, doesn't mean it was the first to come up
with free documentation *criteria*.
-- 
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


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

Re: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free

[Branden Robinson]

On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 08:03:13PM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 03:51:53PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > Um, where in the world can *ideas* be copyrightable?
> 
> Utah :-)

Not what you had in mind, but damnit, now I'm going to have to go watch
_Raising Arizona_ again.   :)

"Maybe it was Utah..."

-- 
G. Branden Robinson| Communism is just one step on the
Debian GNU/Linux   | long road from capitalism to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | capitalism.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Russian saying


pgprpfyNud2Cx.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

[Branden Robinson]

On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 11:21:09AM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
> 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.

On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 12:40:38PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
> >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.
> 
> The choice of words in this text that you cited indicates a desire to
> cast the FSF's actions in a harsh light.  I think that the only such
> statements deserve is to point out that fact.

The FSF *has* added Invariant Sections to manuals that previously did
not have any, such as, as I have already pointed out and you as you
elided from your reply, the GDB Manual.  I do not undersand how
"expansion" is not an accurate description of that practice.  The
practice is deliberate and consistent, therefore it as least plausible
to characterize it as a "policy".  When one applies the adjectival form
of "expansion" to the noun "policy", one gets "expansionist policy".

If you wish to rebut the term on its denotational basis, I'd be
delighted to hear it.

I would appreciate it if you would refrain from speculating as to what
you think my "desires" might be if you are not going to address the
substative point at issue.  That point being, that a mere preservation
of the pre-GNU FDL status quo is not what is in evidence from the FSF's
actions with respect to documentation.

If a mere preservation of the pre-GNU FDL status quo were all that the
FSF desired, it would not need to:
1) encourage others to use the GNU FDL;
2) draft a documentation license for use by others that had a facility
   for "Invariant Sections", for which there is no counterpart in the
   GNU GPL;
3) apply the GNU FDL to manuals that did not previously have invariant
   sections;
4) increase the amount of material identified as "invariant sections" in
   existing manuals.

The FSF has done all of the above.  There is more than a conservative
preservation of the status quo at work.  Therefore, arguments relying
upon how the FSF's recent actions are "not a change" and how it's been
using invariant sections in some of its manuals "since at least 15 years
ago" fail to adequately explain the new things the FSF is doing.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson|  Intellectual property is neither
Debian GNU/Linux   |  intellectual nor property.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |  Discuss.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |  -- Linda Richman


pgpZPr49Cs1UD.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

[MJ Ray]

On 2003-08-27 17:40:38 +0100 Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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.
The choice of words in this text that you cited indicates a desire to
cast the FSF's actions in a harsh light.  I think that the only such
statements deserve is to point out that fact.


Richard, even though you feel that it is desirable to reword the 
language used, can you address the original point made as well, 
please?



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.
The FSF manuals are all free documentation by our criteria.  We are
the ones who first started to say that documentation should be free,
and we are the ones who first wrote criteria for free documentation.


Who do you mean by "we" in the "we are the ones who first started to 
say"?  Certainly not FSF, as it's just a specialism of the concept 
"information should be free" generally credited to the late 1950s or 
early 1960s TMRC.  However much is inherited from them, FSF cannot 
claim to be them.


That's not really important or relevant, though.  When people write 
"non-free" on this list, they generally mean "not free software" and 
FDL-licensed work appears to be "not free software".  Entry into 
Debian is not concerned with whether FDL-licensed work is free 
documentation, or free guacamole even, at this time.  Debian is only 
concerned with software, because that is all it distributes.  So, in 
the jargon commonly used by this project, an FDL-covered work is 
"non-free" because it is "not free software".



I hope that Debian developers will vote to follow our criteria for
free documentation, but they have the right to choose differently.


I hope that you will assist anyone drafting such a proposal.  It is in 
no-one's interests to have a half-baked proposal.  At the very least, 
it will need to address how documentation held as software can be 
differentiated from all other types of software and the necessary 
modifications to the undertakings of the project.  This seems to be a 
hard problem.



However, you cannot expect us to follow your choice if it differs from
ours.  Ultimately we and Debian may simply have to disagree.


Indeed, but it will be a sad day.

--
MJR/slef   My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

[Don Armstrong]

On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, Richard Stallman wrote:
> 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?
> 
> A long message at startup would be very inconvenient, simply for
> being long, regardless of its meaning.  A section of the same length
> in a manual would not cause any such inconvenience.  Nobody is
> "heavily affected" by a few extra pages in a large manual.

For large manuals yes, but when the extra pages approaches (or
exceeds) the order of the content containing pages, it starts becoming
inconvenient, and in some cases prohibitory.

I, and, to a large extent, other members of this list, are concerned
that, beyond the non-trivial freedom aspects, texts under the GFDL
will begin to suffer the same fate that code licensed under the
4-clause BSD license has. [I'm sure you're familiar with
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html but I'll provide it just in
case others aren't.]


Don Armstrong

-- 
Sentenced to two years hard labor (for sodomy), Oscar Wilde stood
handcuffed in driving rain waiting for transport to prison.  "If this
is the way Queen Victoria treats her prisoners," he remarked, "she
doesn't deserve to have any."

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


pgpc10nx3eiPd.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

[Branden Robinson]

On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 05:32:17PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> You don't understand what free software is about.

He doesn't understand what English grammar is about, either.  I have
long since despaired of trying to comprehend is arguments, grounded as
they are in fallacy and communicated with the coherence of a
Markov-chain-based conversation simulator.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson|Religion is regarded by the common
Debian GNU/Linux   |people as true, by the wise as
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |false, and by the rulers as useful.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |-- Lucius Annaeus Seneca


pgpF8vdlNetTv.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

[Branden Robinson]

On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 12:40:36PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
> > 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?
> 
> A long message at startup would be very inconvenient, simply for being
> long, regardless of its meaning.  A section of the same length in a
> manual would not cause any such inconvenience.  Nobody is "heavily
> affected" by a few extra pages in a large manual.

The GNU FDL's requirment of the inclusion of Invariant Sections is not
waived when the material quoted from the manual, or the manual itself,
is not large.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson| One doesn't have a sense of humor.
Debian GNU/Linux   | It has you.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Larry Gelbart
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |


pgpISO0V5tNAh.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

[Branden Robinson]

On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 06:41:26PM +0200, Sergey Spiridonov wrote:
> According to your statement, any license do not put any restriction on 
> user. It does a copyright law. GPL lifts some limits to restrict users.
> 
> So does FDL.

Not enough to make it Free.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson|  Measure with micrometer,
Debian GNU/Linux   |  mark with chalk,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |  cut with axe,
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |  hope like hell.


pgph31H5dPFL0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

[Branden Robinson]

On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 12:19:03PM -0400, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
> Free text is a matter of the reader's freedom to read, copy,
> distribute, study, change, and improve the text.  More precisely, it
> refers to five kinds of freedom, for the readers of the text:
> 
> * The freedom to read the text, for any purpose. (0)
> * The freedom to study how the text is written, and adapt it to your
>   needs.  Access to the text in the preferred form for modification is
>   a precondition for this. (1)
> * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor. (2)
> * The freedom to improve the text, and release your improvements to
>   the public, so that the whole community benefits.  Access to the
>   preferred form for modification is a precondition for this. (3)
> * The freedom to keep your modifications, or even your possession of a
>   copy of the text, confidential. (4)

Woohoo!  My fifth freedom lives!

I would only suggest s/text/content/, so that non-texual material
(illustrations and so forth) are also unambiguously covered.

[analysis snipped]

Bravo.

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


pgpYdFH3hnVg9.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

[Josselin Mouette]

Le mer 27/08/2003 à 18:42, Richard Stallman a écrit :
> 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.
> 
> I hope that the Debian developers will vote to include GFDL-covered
> manuals in Debian.  Whatever Debian decides, some amount of cooperation
> ought to be possible between the GNU Project and Debian.

You are asking for one-way cooperation. We have stated many times why we
don't want GFDL'ed documents in Debian, and you imply that we need to
change our minds, and you don't need to change your license.

That's not the way things work. You are free not to change your license,
and we are free to drop your documents if we feel your license is not
suitable.

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

[Brian T. Sniffen]

Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> > 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?
>
> A long message at startup would be very inconvenient, simply for being
> long, regardless of its meaning.  A section of the same length in a
> manual would not cause any such inconvenience.  Nobody is "heavily
> affected" by a few extra pages in a large manual.

But what about those who would use the large manual to derive a small
manual?  You've granted one important freedom with the GFDL -- the
freedom to modify the existing work for its current purpose.

You've held back the freedom to derive works of new and different
purpose.  That's the core argument behind most of what's been said on
debian-legal: the controls on deriving new works are too onerous.

The technical arguments, like that regarding the "no technical
measures to restrict copying," which bans marking a GFDL'd file
anything other than world-readable, are probably surmountable with a
new version of the GFDL.  The ability of a vi-worshipping author to,
say, add an invariant section in his math-in-lisp text on editor
choice, thus forbidding use of anything from that text in any Elisp
manual, is too much of a restriction to be Free.

-Brian

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

Software Freedoms : documentation

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 12:19:03 -0400, Brian T Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 

Hi,

   This is a great start. My admittedly cursory look at the
 archives failed to come up with a list similar to this posted
 earlier, so I apologize if this has all been covered
 innumerable time before. 

> * The freedom to read the text, for any purpose. 
> * The freedom to study how the text is written, and adapt it to your
>   needs.  Access to the text in the preferred form for modification
>   is a precondition for this. 
This includes the ability to modify the work to fit in low memory
situations, refernce cards, PDA's,  embedded devices, etc.

  * Freedom to reformat the document into a preferred format or medium
(converting to braille, or speech, or postscript, etc).

> * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your
>   neighbor. 

> * The freedom to improve the text, and release your improvements to
>   the public, so that the whole community benefits.  Access to the
>   preferred form for modification is a precondition for this. 
For  program documentation, this implies being able to change the
documentation to reflect the changes in the program.

  * Freedom to translate the text into any other language (esperanto,
hindi, icelandic)

> * The freedom to keep your modifications, or even your possession of
>   a copy of the text, confidential. 


manoj

-- 
"I am astounded ... at the wonderful power you have developed - and
terrified at the thought that so much hideous and bad music may be put
on record forever." Arthur Sullivan, on seeing a demonstration of
Edison's new talking machine in 1888
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

[Brian T. Sniffen]

Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> 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.
>
> The FSF manuals are all free documentation by our criteria.  We are
> the ones who first started to say that documentation should be free,
> and we are the ones who first wrote criteria for free documentation.

I would swear Knuth predates you.  I'm certain that Jefferson and
Franklin, who argued against the Copyright Clause of the US
Constitution, predate you.

I find it implausible that you would not know that Thomas Jefferson
and Benjamin Franklin opposed the Copyright Clause particularly
because they believed documentation -- information of all sorts --
should be free.  It may be convenient to forget about them, but it
reflects badly on you to claim credit for yourself which rightly
belongs to your betters.

> I hope that Debian developers will vote to follow our criteria for
> free documentation, but they have the right to choose differently.
> However, you cannot expect us to follow your choice if it differs from
> ours.  Ultimately we and Debian may simply have to disagree.

But the FSF is exploiting its monopoly position with regard to Emacs
to do things which it does not permit further distributors to do.  The
Emacs manual claims to be part of Emacs, but only the FSF, as the
copyright holder of both works, can distribute a combined work of
Emacs and the Emacs Manual.  I cannot distribute a package consisting
of Emacs and Brian's GFDL'd Emacs Manual, because the GPL does not
permit me to link my GFDL'd text&code with Emacs.

-Brian

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

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

[Brian T. Sniffen]

Sergey Spiridonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
>
>> You are incorrect.  Copyright law limits how you may copy or
>> distribute the code.  The GPL lifts some, but not all, of these
>> limits.
>> The GPL itself takes away nothing.
>
> According to your statement, any license do not put any restriction on
> user. It does a copyright law. GPL lifts some limits to restrict users.

This section is sufficiently far from Standard Written English that I cannot
reliably parse it.  Perhaps this is what you mean:

: According to your statement, no license puts any restrictions on
: users.  Copyright law does so.  GPL lifts some limits which
: otherwise restrict users.

I'm going to proceed as if that's correct -- say so if it's not.

Many licenses put restrictions on users.  For example, some
proprietary licenses forbid running the program for profit, or forbid
publication of quantitative critical reviews.  Copyright law,
normally, does not forbid me from running a program in whatever way I
like, or from publishing true factual information.

Both of these example licenses offer me a trade: they will permit me
to do certain things otherwise forbidden by copyright law (i.e., copy the
program onto my computer) in exchange for not doing certain things
otherwise allowed by copyright law (i.e., running the program for
certain purposes, publishing reviews).

> So does FDL.

The GNU FDL, like the proprietary licenses I mentioned as examples,
offers a trade.  Unlike the MIT/X11 license or the GNU GPL, the GNU
FDL does not only grant permissions to the user: it offers to trade
him some permissions in exchange for some freedoms.

The particular trade it offers is non-free.

-Brian

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

Re: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free

[Scott James Remnant]

On Wed, 2003-08-27 at 14:51, Henning Makholm wrote:

> Scripsit Anthony Towns 
> 
> > You're invited to demonstrate an instance of someone coming up with the
> > exact same expression of the exact same copyrightable idea being sued
>   ^^
> 
> Um, where in the world can *ideas* be copyrightable?
> 
"Trade Secrets" work like this in some countries, and you can even tell
people about them and still claim them to be your Trade Secret.

Scott
-- 
Have you ever, ever felt like this?
Had strange things happen?  Are you going round the twist?


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

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

[Matthew Garrett]

Fedor Zuev wrote:

>   2) Can't be counted as accept any action that is not the
>subject of the agreement. Subject of agreement in this case -
>transfer of rights. Therefore, can't be counted as accept any
>action, which you have statutory (directly from the law) right to
>perform. Namely: installation from CD|DVD-ROM, quotation and
>other fair use, backup, non-public (f.e. for single user) display
>via electronic means (f.e. SSL).

See http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_19880048_en_3.htm#mdiv17
- in the UK, installation from CD requires permission from the copyright
holder. There are no fair use provisions, either.

>_In_ _a_ _way_ _requiring_ _permission_ _under_ _copyright_ _law_!

If I copy a GFDLed document, I require permission under copyright law.
-- 
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

[D . Goel]

 === CUT HERE ===

 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.

   [   ]  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.

   [ X ]  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.

 === CUT HERE ===

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

[David B Harris]

On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 17:11:57 +0900 (IRKST)
Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>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.
> 
>   It is not a violation of license to _have_ GFDL documents
> anywhere. I already discuss this example in all details.

Could you point me to a URL of such a discussion? I'm afraid I must have
missed it.

> >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.
> 
>   Heh. And, according to the same logic, you should not lock
> the door of your home, because someone may want to copy document
> from your desktop. Get real!
> 
>   GFDL says about _further_ distribution of already received
> work, not about initial copying you may allow or not allow to
> someone. But, ever regardless of particular terms of license it is
> clear from the law, that you can have any obligations only to the
> _legitimate_ recipient of a copy of work. If someone get a copy by
> the means, which is illegal itself, without your will, consent and
> ever awareness, this can't create for you any obligations to him.

"of the copies you *make or distribute*"

Emphasis mine. The language is pretty clear.


pgpOCt1mXRZNt.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

[Nathanael Nerode]

Richard Stallman wrote:

>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.

The choice of words in this text that you cited indicates a desire to
cast the FSF's actions in a harsh light.  I think that the only such
statements deserve is to point out that fact.

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.

The FSF manuals are all free documentation by our criteria.  We are
the ones who first started to say that documentation should be free,
and we are the ones who first wrote criteria for free documentation
And the first people to write a license for free software were at the 
University of California, Berkeley, I believe.  Is this relevant? 
Having an idea first is important, but it doesn't mean that you've got 
it right.  Generally the first person to have an idea gets it 
approximately right, but it is refined by later thinkers, who see points 
the first discoverer may have missed.



I hope that Debian developers will vote to follow our criteria for
free documentation, but they have the right to choose differently.
However, you cannot expect us to follow your choice if it differs from
ours.  Ultimately we and Debian may simply have to disagree.

^^--(meaning the people running the FSF presumably)

Quite right.  A large degree of this discussion has been with people who 
seem to feel that Debian must follow whatever the FSF chooses, or that 
it must follow some kind of special, unusual procedure if it wishes to 
disagree with the FSF, but that is nonsense.


Of course, I think that the FSF should consider the views of those 
devoted contributors to FSF programs who are avoiding working on FSF 
manuals because of the FSF "Invariant Section" policies, and have been 
since we discovered these policies.  I, for one, feel that we have been 
ignored and disregarded in a high-handed and summary fashion.  This is 
probably why I tend to view the FSF's actions here in a harsh light.


But the FSF has no actual obligation to consider its contributors, so 
you may choose to disregard and alienate them, and we cannot expect you 
to make any other choice.  I think this is not in the long-term best 
interests of the FSF or the free software movement, however.


Thank you for your time and calm commentary.

--Nathanael

Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy

[Joe Wreschnig]

On Wed, 2003-08-27 at 03:08, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> Quoting Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 
> > > Software in Debian is 100% free. It doesn't prevent Debian to
> > > distribute something else than software.
> > 
> > The social contract says Debian will remain 100% free software. Not that
> > Debian's software will remain 100% free. Bruce Perens has already
> > stepped up to clarify that this is in fact the intent of the DFSG - that
> > it applies to *everything* in Debian.
> 
> "We promise to keep the Debian GNU/Linux Distribution entirely free software"
>
> This is from Clause 1 of the Social Contract. It is ambiguous.

The one that precedes it, "Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software", is
not. Which is the same sentence I used in writing my mail.

I would also say that the sentence you chose is semantically the same,
and that if it meant the other thing, it would say "We promise to keep
the software in the Debian GNU/Linux Distribution entirely free". But
the first sentence in SC#1 is so unambiguous it doesn't matter.
 
> > In situations where you are dealing with someone else's source, the GPL
> > restricts you only insofar as it makes you give everyone else the same
> > rights you had. The GFDL does not do this, because you can add invariant
> > sections, and take away others' rights.
> 
> This is why I'd prefer a case per study. Some invariants would be
> acceptable (like Free Software advocacy), others not.

(First of all, this still needs a GR. Everything I say after this
assumes that someone has proposed and managed to pass (Hah!) a social
contract amendment that says we can discuss invariant sections and deem
them acceptable.)

Yeesh. Okay. So let's say I want to include something invariant that's
anti-capitalist. A lot of people will hate that, and say I should take
it out. What do we do, remove any document that one person has an
objection to? That 10 people do? This would still keep the GNU manuals
out of main.

Do we vote on every possible invariant section? That would take
literally decades, I think.

This is the worst idea you've had yet.
-- 
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


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

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

[Richard Stallman]

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.

I hope that the Debian developers will vote to include GFDL-covered
manuals in Debian.  Whatever Debian decides, some amount of cooperation
ought to be possible between the GNU Project and Debian.

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

[Richard Stallman]

> 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?

A long message at startup would be very inconvenient, simply for being
long, regardless of its meaning.  A section of the same length in a
manual would not cause any such inconvenience.  Nobody is "heavily
affected" by a few extra pages in a large manual.

Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy

[Henning Makholm]

Scripsit =?iso-8859-1?b?Suly9G1l?= Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Quoting Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

>> But if I did agree with you, can you imagine the flame wars that
>> would result if we had to decide, on a case-by-case basis, whether
>> or not Debian could permit and/or support various invariant
>> screeds?

> Hey, non-software-related invariants would be rejected, at least. :-)

Why so sure? Some day or later we may get a manual with an invariant
section reading

   The original author of this fine software passed away of cancer
   last January. I (the new maintainer) would like all users of the
   program to consider donating to their local cancer-reseach
   charity. More funds for such research is important because
   

and you can call me a chinchilla if there won't be a handful of Debian
developers arguing passionately that such a noble cause does deserve
being furthered by Debian.

-- 
Henning Makholm   "Monarki, er ikke noget materielt ... Borger!"

Re: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free

[Branden Robinson]

On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 03:51:53PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Anthony Towns 
> 
> > You're invited to demonstrate an instance of someone coming up with the
> > exact same expression of the exact same copyrightable idea being sued
>   ^^
> 
> Um, where in the world can *ideas* be copyrightable?

Indeed.  I'm glad to see the disposition of #181493 is in such assertive
hands.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson|It is the responsibility of
Debian GNU/Linux   |intellectuals to tell the truth and
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |expose lies.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |-- Noam Chomsky


pgpFEGJNRUy2V.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

[Richard Stallman]

>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.

The choice of words in this text that you cited indicates a desire to
cast the FSF's actions in a harsh light.  I think that the only such
statements deserve is to point out that fact.

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.

The FSF manuals are all free documentation by our criteria.  We are
the ones who first started to say that documentation should be free,
and we are the ones who first wrote criteria for free documentation.

I hope that Debian developers will vote to follow our criteria for
free documentation, but they have the right to choose differently.
However, you cannot expect us to follow your choice if it differs from
ours.  Ultimately we and Debian may simply have to disagree.

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

[Sergey Spiridonov]

Brian T. Sniffen wrote:


You are incorrect.  Copyright law limits how you may copy or
distribute the code.  The GPL lifts some, but not all, of these
limits.

The GPL itself takes away nothing.


According to your statement, any license do not put any restriction on 
user. It does a copyright law. GPL lifts some limits to restrict users.


So does FDL.
--
Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov

Debian logo DFSG-freeness

[Josselin Mouette]

Alfie's post reminds me that I need clarification on some point: the
fact that the Debian logo, which is shipped within many of our packages,
is not DFSG-free.
It was already raised:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200111/msg00041.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200209/msg00192.html
but I don't see any statement on how this should be dealt with.

Is the current status quo to consider it as DFSG-free? Or to consider it
doesn't need to? If someone forks Debian and lets the logos in, he would
be violating the license because of e.g. the backgrounds.

It would be more clever to dual-license it under either the current
license or another license; an old-style BSD license with advertising
clause or a simple copyleft license come up as reasonable choices.

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

Mailscanner warning notification! (Attachment Removal)

[firewall-admins]

 eManager Notification *

The following mail was blocked since it contains sensitive content.

Source mailbox: 
Destination mailbox(es): <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Policy: Attachment Removal
Attachment file name: your_document.pif - application/octet-stream
Action: Replaced with text

The Software AG Mailscanner has removed a sensitive attachment file in the 
email.

*** End of message *
X-Proxy: Software AG Mail Gateway
Received: from FRANK (pD9E177EC.dip.t-dialin.net [217.225.119.236])
by hermes.ecomp.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian 8.9.3-21) with ESMTP id TAA01235
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 27 Aug 2003 19:06:42 +0200
From: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-Authentication-Warning: hermes.ecomp.net: Host pD9E177EC.dip.t-dialin.net 
[217.225.119.236] claimed to be FRANK
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Your application
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 19:09:45 +0200
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean
Importance: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
boundary="_NextPart_000_0077F853"

Re: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free

[Richard Braakman]

On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 03:51:53PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Um, where in the world can *ideas* be copyrightable?

Utah :-)

Richard Braakman

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

[Josselin Mouette]

Le mer 27/08/2003 à 16:33, Sergey Spiridonov a écrit :
> Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> > As far as I know, there is no such restriction in usage. It only limits
> 
> Yes, I agree. What I want to point out is: GPL have restrictions 
> (limitations) on what you can do with the GPL code. So, it takes away 
> *some* freedoms.

Again, no, no and NO. What limitations are you talking about?

> Debian users and maintainers agree with such limitations because they do 
> not need this freedom in most cases (the freedom to include GPL code 
> into the proprietary code and to distribute binary result).

THIS - IS - NOT - A - LIMITATION .
You can do *whatever you want* with GPL'ed code, technically speaking.
Redistributing a modified version as a proprietary product, but there is
no restriction on producing this version. Only a restriction on *how*
you distribute it.

> The same thing is with FDL. If Debian users and maintainers do not need 
> the freedom to remove political statements in most cases

In most cases? So if we need a freedom only sometimes, we don't really
need to be strict about it.
Hey, most of our users don't modify the software we distribute, so why
require they can? (Oops, it's exactly what you are asking for invariant
sections.)

> (for example 
> Manifesto from Emacs), they can agree with invariant sections in 
> documenation.

The problem is not doing it. The problem is being able to do it. With
your reasoning, we don't need any free software.

> I believe in most cases we can agree with such a limitation.

Oh, but we already agree with such limitations. In the non-free section.
-- 
 .''`.   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: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?

[Joe Moore]

On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 05:15:10 +, Branden Robinson wrote:
> === CUT HERE ===
>
> 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.
>
> === CUT HERE ===

--Joe

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

[Steve Langasek]

On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 11:07:00AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> > As far as L/GPL incompatibility is concerned, you'll note that Sun,
> > the copyright holders, specifically offer Linux systems that include
> > glibc with GPLed applications, and an LGPLed libc, to their customers.
> > See http://wwws.sun.com/software/linux/index.html .

> You should also note that SCO does (or at least did) offer copies of the
> Linux kernel to both their customers and to the world at large, under
> the GPL.

Are you saying that the Sun code should be regarded as infringing solely
because SCO is a company controlled by litigious, opportunistic bastards
who have no qualms about filing suits with no legal basis for no other
reason than to jack up their stock price and give themselves an out from
a company with no marketable assets?

Not a position that holds much promise for the future of Free Software
in general.

-- 
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer


pgptqdNhVSDYN.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

[Josselin Mouette]

Le mer 27/08/2003 à 14:07, Fedor Zuev a écrit :
>   I do not say, that users want to read Manifesto or Adobe
> EULA. I say that they can reasonable expect to receive it from you.
> There may be reasons for this, other than pleasure of reading.
> 
>   May be user will decide not to use Emacs at all, if he will
> know, that Emacs and Manifesto written by the same man. (Btw, this
> if a far more usual and far more honest behavior, than strip
> Manifesto and continue to use it)

You don't understand what free software is 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: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy

[Brian T. Sniffen]

Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Quoting Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> > We don't agree? So what?
>> 
>> Oh, I certainly disagree with you, but that wasn't my point -- others
>> are doing a fine job of making that argument.  But if I did agree with
>> you, can you imagine the flame wars that would result if we had to
>> decide, on a case-by-case basis, whether or not Debian could permit
>> and/or support various invariant screeds?  I have a feeling l.d.o
>> would simply explode!
>
> Hey, non-software-related invariants would be rejected, at least. :-)

But since Debian distributes only software, and Invariants must be
Secondary... actually, isn't the GNU Manifesto non-secondary when
distributed as part of Debian GNU/Whatever?

-Brian

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

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

[Joe Moore]

Fedor Zuev said:
> On Tue, 26 Aug 2003, David Starner wrote:
>>Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>>> 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?
>
>   1) It should be compilable with any compiler used for
> compilation of ls.

If this is a reason to reject the invariant --hangman option for ls as
non-free, then this is a reason to reject invariant (untranslatable)
sections of documents as non-free.

--Joe

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

[Brian T. Sniffen]

Sergey Spiridonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Bernhard R. Link wrote:
>> As far as I know, there is no such restriction in usage. It only limits
>
> Yes, I agree. What I want to point out is: GPL have restrictions
> (limitations) on what you can do with the GPL code. So, it takes away
> *some* freedoms.

You are incorrect.  Copyright law limits how you may copy or
distribute the code.  The GPL lifts some, but not all, of these
limits.

The GPL itself takes away nothing.

> The same thing is with FDL. If Debian users and maintainers do not
> need the freedom to remove political statements in most cases (for
> example Manifesto from Emacs), they can agree with invariant sections
> in documenation.
>
> I believe in most cases we can agree with such a limitation.

Your argument has false premises.  Want to try again?

-Brian

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

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

[Brian T. Sniffen]

Alright, if none of the GNU Free Warez License folks are going to come
up with freedoms for documentation, I'm going to.  This is heavily
derived from the FSF's Four Freedoms, before they went fundamentalist
and proprietary:

Free text is a matter of the reader's freedom to read, copy,
distribute, study, change, and improve the text.  More precisely, it
refers to five kinds of freedom, for the readers of the text:

* The freedom to read the text, for any purpose. (0)
* The freedom to study how the text is written, and adapt it to your
  needs.  Access to the text in the preferred form for modification is
  a precondition for this. (1)
* The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor. (2)
* The freedom to improve the text, and release your improvements to
  the public, so that the whole community benefits.  Access to the
  preferred form for modification is a precondition for this. (3)
* The freedom to keep your modifications, or even your possession of a
  copy of the text, confidential. (4)

The GFDL fails point 0, due to the "any copies you make" bit about
technical restrictions: I cannot legally download a GFDL text onto
a machine covered by HIPAA, for example, which requires technical
restrictions on information distribution.

The GFDL fails point 1 when Invariant Sections are used.  I wish to
use a paragraph from the GNU Manifesto in my own arguments about the
liberation of antarctic waterfowl, but I am prevented by its license.
I wish to use a paragraph from the GNU GPL2 Preamble in a screed I'm
publishing on the nature of primitive bovine implements, but I am
prevented by its license.  I wish to make an Emacs reference card, but...

The GFDL appears to meet point 2, but fails point 4 -- again due to
the provision regarding technical restrictions on copies you make.

It also fails point 3, as I can't close any of the holes in logic in
"Why Free Software needs Free Documentation" and release them.

So given all of that, let's take the rest of your message in hand:

>>> 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.
>
>   They can use, improve and distribute it by all useful means.
>
>   Removing of secondary section from manual can't be count nor
> as improvement, nor as adaptation of manual.

Of course it is.  There's no reason for the GNU Manifesto to be
published with a manual on BSD's awk, or for cover texts saying "A GNU
Manual" to be there.  Removing that misleading text would be an
improvement.

>>> 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.
>
>   Removing a section from document does not create autiorship
> for derivative work, btw. Because, "the copyright in a compilation
> or derivative work extends only to the material _contributed_ by the
> author of such work" (USC T17 S103). If you not contribute anything,
> you is not an author, regardless of how much you removed.

You're confused about copyright law.  For example, if I publish an
anthology composed of the first chapter of each of several famous
books, I own the copyright on the compilation, despite having only
removed text.  The original authors, of course, retain their
copyrights on both their whole books and on the chapters I used, and
I'd better have their permission before I try this.

As long as there is creative expression in which sections I choose, I
retain copyright on that expression.

-Brian

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

Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy

[Joel Baker]

On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 10:07:41AM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
> Oh, I certainly disagree with you, but that wasn't my point -- others
> are doing a fine job of making that argument.  But if I did agree with
> you, can you imagine the flame wars that would result if we had to
> decide, on a case-by-case basis, whether or not Debian could permit
> and/or support various invariant screeds?  I have a feeling l.d.o
> would simply explode!

It could be argued that deciding, on a case by case basis, which items of
invariant speech were acceptable based on subject or statements could be
viewed as making a statement of non-technical policy, and subject to GR
approval. Per item.

Where are we going, and why am I in this handbasket?
-- 
Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,''`.
Debian GNU NetBSD/i386 porter: :' :
 `. `'
   `-


pgpylCYqt559h.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

[MJ Ray]

On 2003-08-27 15:33:32 +0100 Sergey Spiridonov 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The same thing is with FDL. If Debian users and maintainers do not 
need the 
freedom to remove political statements in most cases (for example 
Manifesto 
from Emacs), they can agree with invariant sections in documenation.


I believe in most cases we can agree with such a limitation.


It seems that you haven't been reading what has been written to this 
list.  You could equally well argue that Debian users do not need the 
freedom to adapt the software to do tasks that they want to do.  It 
would not be any more correct to say that we will agree with that.


We *can* agree with it, but we *can* stab our eyes with palette knives 
too.  It doesn't mean that we will.  Please, stop treating this list 
as a write-only dumping ground for rhetoric and go do something more 
obviously useful instead.  Even if that "useful" was developing your 
ideas about FDL some more and writing them up, that's better than just 
restating the same things in dozens of emails.


--
MJR/slef   My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

[Fedor Zuev]

On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, Keith Dunwoody wrote:

>Fedor Zuev wrote:

>>  Heh. And, according to the same logic, you should not lock
>> the door of your home, because someone may want to copy document
>> from your desktop. Get real!

>Exactly. According to the logic of the GFDL you should not lock the
>door of your home.  See why the GFDL is a bad license?

>>
>>  GFDL says about _further_ distribution of already received
>> work, not about initial copying you may allow or not allow to
>> someone. But, ever regardless of particular terms of license it is
>> clear from the law, that you can have any obligations only to the
>> _legitimate_ recipient of a copy of work. If someone get a copy by
>> the means, which is illegal itself, without your will, consent and
>> ever awareness, this can't create for you any obligations to him.
>>

> From the infamous document, section 2:

>You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the
>reading or further copying of the copies you /make/ or distribute.
>(emphisis mine)

>By downloading a copy of a GFDL document you are making a copy of
>it -- no redistribution required

IMHO, there a some misunderstanding of how public licenses
works. Excuse me, if you mean something else, but I should be sure.

There is no single GFDL (GPL, BSDL, APL) written on the
clouds and expected to be known for everyone.

Each particular copy of public license (GFDL) is a written
offer from the copyright holder (FSF) to the owner of the copy (you)
to perform some action, which, according to copyright law, is a
exclusive right of copyright holder. To make a deal you may write
"Yes!" on the license, sign it and send signed copy back to FSF. But
this is not an expected way to make a deal in this case. According
to the most of the contract laws, offer becomes accepted, and
contract becomes "signed" if the _recipient_ of the written offer
has executed _his part of the agreement_. In this case - if you, in
reply to offer (GFDL), perform any action, which, according to
copyright law, is a exclusive right of copyright holder. Please note
that:

1) Can't be counted as accept any action you perform
_before_ you receive and read the offer. You definitely can't read
the offer (GFDL) before you downloaded the package, and you may well
not read it at all, if you are pure user. Therefore, downloading
from the Net is _not_, an can _not_ be governed by your copy of
GFDL, because you do not have such copy yet. It is governed by copy
of GFDL owned by distributor|hoster|webmaster, and not of your
concern at all.

2) Can't be counted as accept any action that is not the
subject of the agreement. Subject of agreement in this case -
transfer of rights. Therefore, can't be counted as accept any
action, which you have statutory (directly from the law) right to
perform. Namely: installation from CD|DVD-ROM, quotation and
other fair use, backup, non-public (f.e. for single user) display
via electronic means (f.e. SSL).

If you do not believe (reasonably, never believe anyone) to
my interpretation of law, you can read directly in the body of GFDL:

-

 You accept the license if you copy, modify or distribute the work
in a way requiring permission under copyright law.
--

-

_In_ _a_ _way_ _requiring_ _permission_ _under_ _copyright_ _law_!

Only!

3) After both sides executed their parts of agreement, the
contract is finished (sorry, not know proper english term) and
obligations of sides expired. In this case, atfer you perform all
required stances to distribute or make some particular copy of the
work under the terms of GFDL, you are free again, and don't have any
obligations to the copyright holder. GO TO 1.

Understand? Agree? Then re-read my previous letter.

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

[Stephen Ryan]

On Wed, 2003-08-27 at 07:13, Fedor Zuev wrote:
>   Removing of secondary section from manual can't be count nor
> as improvement, nor as adaptation of manual.

It is, by definition[0], off-topic.  Therefore, as any good editor[1]
will tell you, it would be an improvement to remove it.


[0] Read the GFDL; every Secondary Section is defined as being
off-topic.

[1] The human kind, who is responsible for making sure that the
resulting work is coherent and complete.  It is painfully obvious that
the so-called "Free Software" community could *desperately* use the
services of many competent editors of this sort.  The emacs manual, in
particular, is filled with off-topic material, begins with a bunch of
legalese that a) belongs at the end, and b) describes in great detail
how that emacs as a whole is licensed under a self-incompatible license
(GPL+GFDL, since it claims right there that the documentation is part of
the editor[2]), contains advertisements (for other systems, no less),
and contains a couple of embarrassingly juvenile comments about some of
the operating systems it runs on.  All in all, an embarrassment to "Free
Software" -- and that's all just in the first page of the index!

I'm not an editor by trade, nor am I willing to work on something where
I perceive the license to be the height of hypocrisy *and* the license
is written in such a way as to ensure that I cannot succeed in my task. 
I do, however, recognize that the GFDL is a very real limitation on the
improvements that can be made to this manual. 

[2] The electronic kind.
-- 
Stephen RyanDebian Linux 3.0
Technology Coordinator
Center for Educational Outcomes
at Dartmouth College

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

[Anthony DeRobertis]

> As far as L/GPL incompatibility is concerned, you'll note that Sun,
> the copyright holders, specifically offer Linux systems that include
> glibc with GPLed applications, and an LGPLed libc, to their customers.
> See http://wwws.sun.com/software/linux/index.html .

You should also note that SCO does (or at least did) offer copies of the
Linux kernel to both their customers and to the world at large, under
the GPL.


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

Re: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free

[Jeremy Hankins]

Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> If the code is copyrighted, then we must consider the case of
> someone incorporating the Sun RPC code into a work and distributing
> it to a second person, who subsequently refines this work to create
> yet another work which happens to be identical to the original Sun
> RPC code.  In such a case, there are two possible interpretations
> under copyright that must be considered:
>
> {
>   Provably independent creation of a work identical to another,
>   pre-existing work that enjoys copyright status is not an
>   infringement of the first work's copyright.,
>
>   Creation of an identical work, even if provably independent (no
>   copying took place from the original work), still infringes the
>   copyright of the earlier work.
> }

The problem here is the "provably independent" -- by hypothesis the
work is based in part on the original Sun RPC code.  So Sun's terms,
along with those of the GPL, still apply.  So the first option is
clearly irrelevant.

> Under a regime where independent creation of a given expression is a
> copyright infringement, the only way the GPL can be internally
> consistent is if it does *not* require authors to relinquish their
> right to pursue infringements against the copyright of their
> original, independent work; otherwise, the paragraphs cited above
> are meaningless, and actually leave an author who chooses to
> distribute his code under the GPL with no right at all (or no
> practical means of enforcement) to control the creation of copies of
> the original work, only the right to create new derivative works and
> license (or not license) them under terms of his choice.

I'm having a lot of trouble parsing this (single!) sentence.  On the
face of it you seem to be saying that someone who licenses something
under the GPL ought to be able to come along later and add extra
restrictions to the license, and that RMS could not possibly have
intended otherwise when the GPL was written.

> If the GPL
> really did require this, we would have a problem, because the
> copyright holder of the Sun RPC code hasn't granted us this
> permission.  However, I don't believe that this is the intended
> meaning of the GPL; rather, I understand the paragraphs above to
> have the plain meaning that the GPL does *not* contest the copyright
> of the original code, and therefore code whose license bears a
> special provision regarding its disposition when in isolation is GPL
> compatible.

It's a good thing the GPL doesn't contest the copyright of the
original code, because it would lose.  Instead, if there is a
conflict, no distribution is possible.  I completely fail to see how
the section of the GPL you quoted is relevant.

The Sun RPC code is *still* licensed under Sun's terms when it is
distributed as part of a GPL work.  But the GPL says to the
distributor (in essence): "License all portions of the work to
distributees under the terms of the GPL, with no extra restrictions.
If you cannot, don't distribute."  Clearly, "don't distributed X block
of code by itself" is a restriction not found in the GPL, therefore
it's not GPL compatible.

Of course, there may or may not have been a clarification, I don't
know.  Though I certainly distrust getting it third (or more) hand.
On the other hand, it's hard to imagine that Sun has a problem with
the code being distributed as part of a GPL work.

> As is often said, law is not like programming; I have no algorithm
> that can tell me which of the above legal outcomes actually
> corresponds to the state of law in any given jurisdiction.

True.  But my understanding is that traditionally d-l has erred on the
side of caution.  That would suggest that if there is doubt we should
seek to clarify that doubt before assuming that there's no problem.

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

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

[Sergey Spiridonov]

Bernhard R. Link wrote:

As far as I know, there is no such restriction in usage. It only limits


Yes, I agree. What I want to point out is: GPL have restrictions 
(limitations) on what you can do with the GPL code. So, it takes away 
*some* freedoms.


Debian users and maintainers agree with such limitations because they do 
not need this freedom in most cases (the freedom to include GPL code 
into the proprietary code and to distribute binary result).


The same thing is with FDL. If Debian users and maintainers do not need 
the freedom to remove political statements in most cases (for example 
Manifesto from Emacs), they can agree with invariant sections in 
documenation.


I believe in most cases we can agree with such a limitation.
--
Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov

Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy

[Jérôme Marant]

Quoting Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> > We don't agree? So what?
> 
> Oh, I certainly disagree with you, but that wasn't my point -- others
> are doing a fine job of making that argument.  But if I did agree with
> you, can you imagine the flame wars that would result if we had to
> decide, on a case-by-case basis, whether or not Debian could permit
> and/or support various invariant screeds?  I have a feeling l.d.o
> would simply explode!

Hey, non-software-related invariants would be rejected, at least. :-)

-- 
Jérôme Marant

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

[Fedor Zuev]

On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, Manoj Srivastava wrote:

> Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, David Starner wrote:
>>> 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?

>>  I aware. Yes, distinction is often unclear.

>>  But this is irrelevant. It is enough that _law_ (majority of
>> existed copyright laws) makes this difference. Difference, based not
>> on the structure of work, but on its function, btw. In some cases
>> you can't anyway ignore such difference, because law demands to make
>> it.  And in some other cases you should not ignore it, even if you
>> can, because such difference benefits you.

>   So what does the law say when the same bits serve as code,
> data, and documentation, all at once? What if there is no
> separation possible, based even on function, since the same
> software serves all these purposes?

Law does nothing, because law is not a person and can't do
something. Question, probably, is what does lawyer? Lawyer, AFAIK,
finds the best interpretation of law for his case, and prepares to
fight worst interpretation.

So, you, as paralegal of Debian project, probably, should:

First, know, when there may be the best and worst
interpretation.

Second, ensure that Debian can meet even the worst
interpretation.

Third, ensure, that Debian behavior does not hurt users, not
prevent them from receiving benefits of the best interpretation,
when possible.


IMHO.

Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy

[Jeremy Hankins]

Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Quoting Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

>>> This is why I'd prefer a case per study. Some invariants would be
>>> acceptable (like Free Software advocacy), others not.
>> 
>> My goodness.  And we thought we already had flame-war problems!
>
> We don't agree? So what?

Oh, I certainly disagree with you, but that wasn't my point -- others
are doing a fine job of making that argument.  But if I did agree with
you, can you imagine the flame wars that would result if we had to
decide, on a case-by-case basis, whether or not Debian could permit
and/or support various invariant screeds?  I have a feeling l.d.o
would simply explode!

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

Re: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free

[Henning Makholm]

Scripsit Anthony Towns 

> You're invited to demonstrate an instance of someone coming up with the
> exact same expression of the exact same copyrightable idea being sued
  ^^

Um, where in the world can *ideas* be copyrightable?

-- 
Henning Makholm  "What has it got in its pocketses?"

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

[Fedor Zuev]

On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, David Starner wrote:

>> Yes, of course. And while copyright _really_, not formally,
>> affects only professional distributors, there was little or no
>> problem with copyright. Problems begins, when copyright grow so
>> large, that it affect the rights and interests of users and authors.

>I don't understand how copyright has grown? It's always been about
>the rights and interests of authors - that's theoritically who the
>copyright law is for.

Well, may be I should say "hurt the rights and interests
of users and authors".

>It still doesn't affect pure users.

Maybe there are still exists several pure users that not
affected by copyright. But majority of users is.

>It just happens that during the duration of copyright law it's gone
>from a time when copying a book meant owning a printing press, to
>running off a few copies at Kinko's, to making an unlimited number
>of copies effortlessly* and cheaply from your computer.

No, it is not true. It is a common opinion, but it is not
true. The majority of problems with copyright come from the grow of
copyright itself, not from the technical progress. Not all, but
majority. If we would have the old, 1904-1912-style copyright laws,
there would be much less problems with copyright.

For example, the computer software become copyrightable only
in the late 70-s - early 90-s, after 30+ years of free existense.

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

[Fedor Zuev]

On Tue, 26 Aug 2003, David Starner wrote:

>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?

1) It should be compilable with any compiler used for
compilation of ls.

2) (not sure for ls but usual problem). It should not
contain bugs, which can be exploited.

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

[Fedor Zuev]

On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Joe Wreschnig 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_.

>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.

You can disagree whith this statement, but it is absurd to
claim that I invent it.

--- http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/free-sw.html ---

Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy,
 ---
distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely,
it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software:

 * The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
 * The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to
your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a
precondition for this.

 * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your
neighbor (freedom 2).

 * The freedom to improve the program, and release your
improvements to the public, so that the whole community
benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a
precondition for this.
--


>> 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.

They can use, improve and distribute it by all useful means.

Removing of secondary section from manual can't be count nor
as improvement, nor as adaptation of manual.

>> 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.

Removing a section from document does not create autiorship
for derivative work, btw. Because, "the copyright in a compilation
or derivative work extends only to the material _contributed_ by the
author of such work" (USC T17 S103). If you not contribute anything,
you is not an author, regardless of how much you removed.

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

>*plonk*

So, now I understand, why you think that almost everyone
agrees with you. :-)

Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy

[Jérôme Marant]

Quoting Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > This is why I'd prefer a case per study. Some invariants would be
> > acceptable (like Free Software advocacy), others not.
> 
> My goodness.  And we thought we already had flame-war problems!

We don't agree? So what?

-- 
Jérôme Marant

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

[Fedor Zuev]

On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, David Starner wrote:

>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.

I do not say, that users want to read Manifesto or Adobe
EULA. I say that they can reasonable expect to receive it from you.
There may be reasons for this, other than pleasure of reading.

May be user will decide not to use Emacs at all, if he will
know, that Emacs and Manifesto written by the same man. (Btw, this
if a far more usual and far more honest behavior, than strip
Manifesto and continue to use it)

May be user will avoid lawsuit, if he will be aware about
ridiculous interpretation of law by Adobe.


>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.

According to my understanding of your words, all that a bit
stricter than public domain is not free. And even a bit of
discrimination toward proprietary OS makes software non-free. Right?

Please excuse me, but I do not believe that "let things go
beyond one solitary point of control and one opinion" is the
official position of any free software organisation and,
particularly, the Debian Project.

Any definition of free software I read about, including
DFSG, was not declaration of total nihilizm, but carefully selected
set of _specific_ freedoms, and say nothing abous control or absense
of control. You may believe that any fixed set of specific freedoms
insufficient to feel youself free. But, please, do not call this a
"nature of free software and free documentation". It is not.

Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy

[Jeremy Hankins]

Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> This is why I'd prefer a case per study. Some invariants would be
> acceptable (like Free Software advocacy), others not.

My goodness.  And we thought we already had flame-war problems!

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

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

[Bernhard R. Link]

* Sergey V. Spiridonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [030825 20:33]:
> 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.

As far as I know, there is no such restriction in usage. It only limits
copying and distributing of the result, as one cannot find a common
licence term for the combination. But this is merely a thing about
incompatible licences, not about a licence in itself...

Hochachtungsvoll,
  Bernhard R. Link

-- 
Sendmail is like emacs: A nice operating system, but missing
an editor and a MTA.

Re: license clarification for IRRToolSet

[Joerg Wendland]

Branden Robinson, on 2003-08-26, 15:16, you wrote:
> It's probably good enough for the Release Manager as-is...

Now what do you mean with that?

Joerg

-- 
Joerg "joergland" Wendland
GPG: 51CF8417 FP: 79C0 7671 AFC7 315E 657A  F318 57A3 7FBD 51CF 8417


pgpmlS5F4fROB.pgp
Description: PGP signature

swirl infringement by electrostore.se

[Gerfried Fuchs]

Hi!

 Any news on the case of the swirl they have in their logo? I can't see
any trace about this at all, the last question on this topic still
stands unanswered (from what I can see).

 It looks like noone seems to care about this rip off at all and I don't
know where Sunnanvind Fenderson too the following from:

,-> quote <-
| the company using the logo, elektrostore, said something to the effect
| of "for all we know, it could be some clipart or font image that Debian
| just used, didn't invent"
`-> quote <-

 For all I know it was original art by Raul M. Silva according to
 so the people who received
the above could maybe kindly tell them about the facts instead of
letting them assume that it was "some clipart or font image"?

 So long,
Alfie
P.S.: It would be nice to Cc: me on replies, I scan only through the
   archives otherwise and might miss it.
-- 
> Also eigentlich wird immer mehr automatisiert. Warum nicht auch die
> Konvertierung von Umlauten von einem characterset in einen anderen?
Weil dann Nöl, der Pöt, eine Pälla verspeist ;-)
 -- Thomas Dehn in de.admin.news.groups


pgprDWltQJ0Fh.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

[Keith Dunwoody]

Fedor Zuev wrote:

On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, David B Harris wrote:


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.



Heh. And, according to the same logic, you should not lock
the door of your home, because someone may want to copy document
from your desktop. Get real!


Exactly. According to the logic of the GFDL you should not lock the door of 
your home.  See why the GFDL is a bad license?




GFDL says about _further_ distribution of already received
work, not about initial copying you may allow or not allow to
someone. But, ever regardless of particular terms of license it is
clear from the law, that you can have any obligations only to the
_legitimate_ recipient of a copy of work. If someone get a copy by
the means, which is illegal itself, without your will, consent and
ever awareness, this can't create for you any obligations to him.



From the infamous document, section 2:
You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or 
further copying of the copies you /make/ or distribute.  (emphisis mine)


By downloading a copy of a GFDL document you are making a copy of it -- no 
redistribution required


-- Keith Dunwoody