Re: Is Open Publication License v1.0 compatible?
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sat, Feb 28, 2004 at 04:52:34PM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote: >> Traditionally d-l has suggested to folks with this problem that they >> use the GPL with explicit explanatory text explaining what they take >> "preferred form for modification" (i.e., source) to mean for their >> work (e.g., an electronic version in the original format, or >> something like it). That should provide the same protections as the >> GPL, though generally it amounts to mandating some form of electronic >> distribution along with printed forms, which can have practical >> problems. > > Commercial printings can just make a written offer to provide the > source on demand, which is then satisfied by sticking it on a website > and referencing the site from the text. Yes. But I can imagine situations where that would mean that, for example, a class couldn't distribute a hardcopy version because they don't have a server to stick it up on. >> But as for the practical problem of distributing hardcopy versions, I >> simply don't see a way to satisfy the criteria: >> >> - DFSG free >> - copyleft (i.e., can't take it proprietary) >> - easy to distribute hardcopy (i.e., without electronic versions) >> >> This is because the last two requirements directly contradict, unless >> you're willing to add extra restrictions as a way to bridge the two >> (e.g., you must provide an electronic version on a web site), which >> would violate the DFSG. I'm eager to be proven wrong here, but I just >> don't think it can be done. The closest you can come, I think, is to >> require that electronic versions accompany hardcopy, but with an >> exception for copies under some number (e.g., 100). Do d-l people agree >> that such a license could be DFSG free? > > If it's free without the exception then it's free with it; the > exception does not make it free. Please don't pick an arbitrary number > though; my class at university had about 110 people in it, so a limit > of 100 would be problematic. Say "for non-commercial use" or something > - that should cover all the cases. Certainly throwing in the exception wouldn't make it non free. But what about making it explicit in the license text that "source" doesn't mean a paper copy? Hrm. Punch cards come to mind. Can't say it should be computer readable -- what about OCR? I don't know how this would properly be worded. -- Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
Re: If DFSG apply to non-software, is GPL*L* incompatible with DFSG?
On Sun, Feb 29, 2004 at 09:07:15AM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote: > I think it's useful to distinguish between software and documentation > and probably licenses (as "legal instruments") too. Licenses are also > documentation (of themselves). House rule: anybody who wishes to distinguish between software and documentation must provide a method for distinguishing between software and documentation. Furthermore, anybody who wants us to treat them differently must describe how they should be treated differently. [Really, all proponents of doing either or both of these things have thus far failed on both points; debating the issue is futile until somebody can actually do this] -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Is Open Publication License v1.0 compatible?
On Sat, Feb 28, 2004 at 04:52:34PM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote: > Traditionally d-l has suggested to folks with this problem that they use > the GPL with explicit explanatory text explaining what they take > "preferred form for modification" (i.e., source) to mean for their work > (e.g., an electronic version in the original format, or something like > it). That should provide the same protections as the GPL, though > generally it amounts to mandating some form of electronic distribution > along with printed forms, which can have practical problems. Commercial printings can just make a written offer to provide the source on demand, which is then satisfied by sticking it on a website and referencing the site from the text. > But as for the practical problem of distributing hardcopy versions, I > simply don't see a way to satisfy the criteria: > > - DFSG free > - copyleft (i.e., can't take it proprietary) > - easy to distribute hardcopy (i.e., without electronic versions) > > This is because the last two requirements directly contradict, unless > you're willing to add extra restrictions as a way to bridge the two > (e.g., you must provide an electronic version on a web site), which > would violate the DFSG. I'm eager to be proven wrong here, but I just > don't think it can be done. The closest you can come, I think, is to > require that electronic versions accompany hardcopy, but with an > exception for copies under some number (e.g., 100). Do d-l people agree > that such a license could be DFSG free? If it's free without the exception then it's free with it; the exception does not make it free. Please don't pick an arbitrary number though; my class at university had about 110 people in it, so a limit of 100 would be problematic. Say "for non-commercial use" or something - that should cover all the cases. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Is Open Publication License v1.0 compatible?
Oleksander Moskalenko wrote: >* Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-02-28 12:21:11 +]: >> >> Scripsit Oleksandr Moskalenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> > I'd like to package an html manual for the package I'm preparing. >> > However, it's covered by the Open Publication License v 1.0. >> > http://opencontent.org/openpub/ >> > Is it DFSG-free? >> >> Hmm.. >> >> | Any publication in standard (paper) book form shall require the >> | citation of the original publisher and author. The publisher and >> | author's names shall appear on all outer surfaces of the book. On >> | all outer surfaces of the book the original publisher's name shall >> | be as large as the title of the work and cited as possessive with >> | respect to the title. >> >> I find this clause non-free, like the similar language in the GFDL. Agree. It puts prohibitive and frankly absurd conditions on other publishers and authors, at least if it applies to modified versions (and it appears to). >> | 2. The person making the modifications must be identified and the >> |modifications dated. - >> >> This seems to fail the Dissident Test. Not necessarily, depending on how "identified" is interpreted (aliases OK?), but maybe. >> | The location of the original unmodified document must be identified. >> >> What do we think of this? It seems to prevent any distribution of >> derivate documents if the original has been lost or at least one does >> not know any location where the original can be found. Ick. This might be construed to correspond to patch-file-only distribution in some sense, so it might possibly be DFSG-free, but it's definitely bad. >> Again let's try to find some internal consensus first. Oleksander Moskalenko wrote: >Later I had a conversation with both upstream authors who were quite >forthcoming in their attempts to resolve this issue. However, their >argument was that they chose the license in question simply because >there weren't any other documentation licenses that would be free, but >yet restricted the publication of the written documents by a commercial >entity that would not be required to contribute back to the project. On its face, this sounds like a non-free requirement -- you can't require that people send you their changes -- but see below. >In my limited understanding it means that they believe that existing >documentation licenses do not "restrict taking the freedoms away" in a >way that GPL does it for the software. Well, if that's all they want, tell them to *use the GPL*. It's a perfectly good license for documentation, and has the advantage (for GPLed programs) that material can be freely moved between the documentation and help strings, comments, etc. in the program. If the GPL doesn't permit something they want to permit, tell them to dual-license under the GPL and whatever other license they want. >The ultimate question, of course, is what is the way for software >documentation to be included into Debian? Documentation in electronic form is also software. License it under a free software license. > What license shall be used or >what modifications shall be made to an existing license? Under a free software license, preferably the same license as the program being documented. > Is it possible >to release the documentation under a separate license _exclusively_ to >Debian? No, that violates "license must not be exclusive to Debian" in the DFSG. > The question for this particular cas is how can the above be >done, while retaining something of the sort of OPLv1.0 Article VI clause >B: > >"B. To prohibit any publication of this work or derivative works in >whole or in part in standard (paper) book form for commercial purposes >is prohibited unless prior permission is obtained from the copyright >holder. This is clearly not DFSG free. Sorry. >To accomplish this, add the phrase 'Distribution of the work or >derivative of the work in any standard (paper) book form is prohibited >unless prior permission is obtained from the copyright holder.' to the >license reference or copy." > >as that seems to be the only concern of the upstream authors in this >case. Well, talk to them and see if they're willing to GPL-license the docs. Simple as that. They may have complaints based on misunderstandings -- I will be happy to help correct any such misunderstandings. :-)
Re: If DFSG apply to non-software, is GPL*L* incompatible with DFSG?
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > The legal terms are not copyrightable; > > In some jurisdictions, perhaps, but not all. Indeed. I might be wrong here, but I think that one of the ways the Law Society in England prevents non-solicitors from taking work away from qualified lawyers is by asserting copyright on the standard terms and conditions used for buying and selling property, say, and then licensing those terms and conditions only to members of the Law Society. They may also raise money by charging for the use of certain legal forms. I think that licence texts should be public-domain. You could X11-license them, but it would be very confusing to have to carry around a licence for the licence, not to mention a licence for the licence for the licence, plus a few changelogs, perhaps, so public domain is best for that particular purpose, I think. Debian seems to allow the use of licences that are themselves unmodifiable. It's a practical necessity, I think, and fairly easy to justify by saying that licences are a kind of meta-content rather than content of the distribution.
Re: If DFSG apply to non-software, is GPL*L* incompatible with DFSG?
On Sun, 2004-02-29 at 08:04, MJ Ray wrote: > The GPL on the CD is software. Absolutely, unequivocally, no debate on this one, right? Intention of Bruce Perens perhaps, intention of many others perhaps. I guess that gives anyone the right to claim this as uncontested fact. I think it's useful to distinguish between software and documentation and probably licenses (as "legal instruments") too. Licenses are also documentation (of themselves). zen
Re: If DFSG apply to non-software, is GPL*L* incompatible with DFSG?
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004, Stephen Ryan wrote: > The legal terms are not copyrightable; In some jurisdictions, perhaps, but not all. Moreover, in Veeck v SBCCI we see that only federal, state and local laws are denied the protection of copyrights (in addition to the classes of works specificaly denied by the constitution.) Moreover, the 5th circuit appears to hold that the Model Codes themselves are in fact copyrightable, but their incorporation into the local code removes the copyright to them. Now, you may be able to construct a set of arguments to convince me and/or others that legal documents are a specific class of work to which copyright protection is not available, but it's not obvious a priori. Don Armstrong -- Tell me something interesting about yourself. Lie if you have to. -- hugh macleod http://www.gapingvoid.com/archives/batch20.php http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: If DFSG apply to non-software, is GPL*L* incompatible with DFSG?
On Sat, 2004-02-28 at 16:35, Don Armstrong wrote (quoting the GPL FAQ): I think the key line is this: > (You can use the legal terms to make another license but it won't be > the GNU GPL.) The legal terms are not copyrightable; this is the FSF admitting that, in a very oblique way. I believe the line is that the protections of the law are too important to be owned by any one entity, and must be available to all. So, "legal terms" are not copyrightable, and you can use them to make another license if you like. The specific terms as applied by any given author to any given work are not subject to further modification, with substantial penalties for violation. Everything in Debian is copyrighted by someone else (i.e., not the Debian project as a whole) and distributed by Debian. The "someone else" (even if otherwise affiliated with Debian) is free per above to use any "legal terms" they like. Legally, Debian must reproduce the given "legal terms" verbatim; so must everyone who redistributes anything they receive from Debian. The official project stance *must* be that immutable licenses are acceptable, because *every* license in Debian is de-facto immutable. In short, licenses in Debian are already as free as they possibly can be. This should be put into a FAQ and buried for good.
Re: Is Open Publication License v1.0 compatible?
Oleksandr Moskalenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > * Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-02-28 12:21:11 +]: >> Scripsit Oleksandr Moskalenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> | Any publication in standard (paper) book form shall require the >> | citation of the original publisher and author. The publisher and >> | author's names shall appear on all outer surfaces of the book. On >> | all outer surfaces of the book the original publisher's name shall >> | be as large as the title of the work and cited as possessive with >> | respect to the title. >> >> I find this clause non-free, like the similar language in the GFDL. I agree. >> | 2. The person making the modifications must be identified and the >> |modifications dated. - >> >> This seems to fail the Dissident Test. Yup. > That's where the Debian related fun starts. The current documentation > is licensed under the OPLv1.0 with an elective clause in part VI that > prohibits publication in paper medium (books) without a written > consent of the original authors. I realized that the latter clause > would make the license not just DFSG non-free, but also GNU non-free, > so I contacted the upstream authors and explained the situation to > them. Later I had a conversation with both upstream authors who were > quite forthcoming in their attempts to resolve this issue. However, > their argument was that they chose the license in question simply > because there weren't any other documentation licenses that would be > free, but yet restricted the publication of the written documents by a > commercial entity that would not be required to contribute back to the > project. "Required to contribute back to the project" leaves a lot unsaid. The GPL doesn't require contributions back to the original project, so they clearly don't mean that literally. Presumably they feel that there are safeguards in the GPL that aren't available for documentation. What safeguards are they talking about? Traditionally d-l has suggested to folks with this problem that they use the GPL with explicit explanatory text explaining what they take "preferred form for modification" (i.e., source) to mean for their work (e.g., an electronic version in the original format, or something like it). That should provide the same protections as the GPL, though generally it amounts to mandating some form of electronic distribution along with printed forms, which can have practical problems. Given that this is a relatively common problem I believe that there's a need for a license (a version of the GPL would be best, IMHO) that makes this more clear within the text of the license -- that may help to relieve some of the uneasiness of folks with this concern. But as for the practical problem of distributing hardcopy versions, I simply don't see a way to satisfy the criteria: - DFSG free - copyleft (i.e., can't take it proprietary) - easy to distribute hardcopy (i.e., without electronic versions) This is because the last two requirements directly contradict, unless you're willing to add extra restrictions as a way to bridge the two (e.g., you must provide an electronic version on a web site), which would violate the DFSG. I'm eager to be proven wrong here, but I just don't think it can be done. The closest you can come, I think, is to require that electronic versions accompany hardcopy, but with an exception for copies under some number (e.g., 100). Do d-l people agree that such a license could be DFSG free? It seems to me that you have to give up one of the above three requirements. So in order to let folks distribute hardcopy versions without an accompanying "source" version you have to go with a more permissive license (e.g., BSD) or less permissive (i.e., not DFSG free). -- Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
Re: If DFSG apply to non-software, is GPL*L* incompatible with DFSG?
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004, Walter Landry wrote: > Actually, you are allowed to modify the license terms. You are just > not allowed to modify the preamble. > > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifyGPL Not quite. There are two answers to this FAQ question on gnu.org, both in opposition to eachother. The other is: Can I omit the preamble of the GPL, or the instructions for how to use it on your own programs, to save space? The preamble and instructions are integral parts of the GNU GPL and may not be omitted. In fact, the GPL is copyrighted, and its license permits only verbatim copying of the entire GPL. (You can use the legal terms to make another license but it won't be the GNU GPL.) http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLOmitPreamble Regardless, our standard tack should be that licences and copyright statements applied directly to a work need not be DFSG Free. However, licenses and copyright statement like documents included that are not specifically executed by a work in Debian need to be DFSG free. [I bludgeoned this tack a bit on -vote about a month ago: http://people.debian.org/~terpstra/message/20040129.031954.8111224d.html] Don Armstrong -- Miracles had become relative common-places since the advent of entheogens; it now took very unusual circumstances to attract public attention to sightings of supernatural entities. The latest miracle had raised the ante on the supernatural: the Virgin Mary had manifested herself to two children, a dog, and a Public Telepresence Point. -- Bruce Sterling, _Holy Fire_ p228 http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Re: If DFSG apply to non-software, is GPL*L* incompatible with DFSG?
On 2004-02-28 14:58:48 + Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: If the DFSG do apply to non-software -- has a descision been made on this? -- this would I think effectively stop Debian from distributing any GPLed work on a CD which conforms to the DFSG. The GPL on the CD is software. Further, we distribute it unmodified in order to be able to distribute the works. It's an interesting corner case, but I think you're wrong about the GPL, as others have pointed out.
Re: If DFSG apply to non-software, is GPL*L* incompatible with DFSG?
Le sam 28/02/2004 à 15:58, Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley a écrit : > Last year, when the controversy over whether the DFSG applies to > documentation (in particular GNU-FDL-ed documentation), I meant to > mention to someone (but promptly forgot) that the license under which > the text of the FSF's licenses (GPL, LGPL, FDL) are licensed is much > stricter than even the FDL so cearly violates the DFSG (if they apply > to it). > > The GPL &c are allowed to be copied only in full without any > modifications. > > If the DFSG do apply to non-software -- has a descision been made on > this? -- this would I think effectively stop Debian from distributing > any GPLed work on a CD which conforms to the DFSG. Oh dear. Poor, poor horses. Even dead, they are never left alone. -- .''`. 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: If DFSG apply to non-software, is GPL*L* incompatible with DFSG?
On Sat, Feb 28, 2004 at 11:40:01AM -0500, Stephen Ryan wrote: > It is clear to me that Debian has been proceeding with something roughly > like the following: > > The legal documents (copyright notice, license) must be retained > verbatim in order for all of us to avoid being sued into oblivion. > Proper attribution (i.e., not misrepresenting anything about the > original author) is the only honest thing to do. Everything else should > be modifiable to suit, or else it isn't truly Free. Actually, you're confusing things here. The legal documents, *as applied to a particular package*, must be retained verbatim. But the law itself doesn't prevent me from taking the GPL, modifying it, and using the modified version as a license for my own package. The GPL does, however, prevent this; and that is why I complained loudly about our stance on this sometime back. -- John
Re: If DFSG apply to non-software, is GPL*L* incompatible with DFSG?
"Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Last year, when the controversy over whether the DFSG applies to > documentation (in particular GNU-FDL-ed documentation), I meant to > mention to someone (but promptly forgot) that the license under > which the text of the FSF's licenses (GPL, LGPL, FDL) are licensed > is much stricter than even the FDL so cearly violates the DFSG (if > they apply to it). > > The GPL &c are allowed to be copied only in full without any modifications. Sigh. Actually, you are allowed to modify the license terms. You are just not allowed to modify the preamble. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifyGPL However, I'm sure that there are lots of other licenses whose terms are not licensed in DFSG-free conditions. My feel for the consensus is that Debian generally makes an exception for license terms. So you could certainly make the case that Debian should strip out the preamble. It hasn't seemed all that pressing, I guess. There hasn't been much abuse so far. Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: If DFSG apply to non-software, is GPL*L* incompatible with DFSG?
* Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040228 16:10]: > The GPL &c are allowed to be copied only in full without any modifications. Legally spoken, if some code is under whatever license, then nothing of the license is removable by anyone except the copyright holder. In the special case of the GPL, furthermore, nothing is addable due to clause 6 of the GPL: | You may not impose any further | restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. So, in practice, the GPL is not modificable. So, there is no difference if the GPL-L-clause would not be there (as we would also be force to delivere the exact copy of the GPL). And a difference that makes no difference is no difference (courtesy to Spock). So, this is ok. Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C
Re: If DFSG apply to non-software, is GPL*L* incompatible with DFSG?
On Sat, 2004-02-28 at 09:58, Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley wrote: > Last year, when the controversy over whether the DFSG applies to > documentation (in particular GNU-FDL-ed documentation), I meant to mention to > someone (but promptly forgot) that the license under which the text of the > FSF's licenses (GPL, LGPL, FDL) are licensed is much stricter than even the > FDL so cearly violates the DFSG (if they apply to it). > > The GPL &c are allowed to be copied only in full without any modifications. > > If the DFSG do apply to non-software -- has a descision been made on this? -- > this would I think effectively stop Debian from distributing any GPLed work > on a CD which conforms to the DFSG. Uh-huh. This too has been discussed to death, though perhaps not with an appropriate summary. Basically, the law requires that the copyright notice remain intact, and in a prescribed form. Furthermore, the law states that anyone other than the copyright holder who makes a copy of a copyrighted work (other than the poorly defined "fair use" rights and the "backup" exemption), is guilty of copyright infringement and subject to statutory damages of up to $150,000 per copy. Your only defense against this is the license granted by the copyright holder; if you alter it, it is no longer the license granted by the copyright holder, and might even be used as evidence of wilful intent to infringe (=maximum damages). Because of this, it is foolish in the extreme not to include the *exact* license text supplied by the original author with *every* copy. It is therefore clear that attempting to apply complete DFSG-freedom to a license is extreme folly; why would you ever want to open yourself up like that? It is clear to me that Debian has been proceeding with something roughly like the following: The legal documents (copyright notice, license) must be retained verbatim in order for all of us to avoid being sued into oblivion. Proper attribution (i.e., not misrepresenting anything about the original author) is the only honest thing to do. Everything else should be modifiable to suit, or else it isn't truly Free. I think it is up to those who would propose that the license texts be DFSG-free as well to provide a proposed benefit that would be worth exposing the project to $150,000 in liability per copy made of each affected package. -- Stephen Ryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Digital Rights Management is bad for all of us: http://www.bricklin.com/robfuture.htm
Re: If DFSG apply to non-software, is GPL*L* incompatible with DFSG?
Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley wrote: > The GPL &c are allowed to be copied only in full without any > modifications. Yes, we should put the GPL itself in non-free, and all the rest of Debian in contrib :-) -- .''`. Y al final, números rojos, en la cuenta del olvido : :' : -- Sabina `. `' Proudly running Debian GNU/Linux (Sid 2.4.20 Ext3) `- www.amayita.com www.malapecora.com www.chicasduras.com
Re: Is Open Publication License v1.0 compatible?
* Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-02-28 12:21:11 +]: > Scripsit Oleksandr Moskalenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > I'd like to package an html manual for the package I'm preparing. > > However, it's covered by the Open Publication License v 1.0. > > http://opencontent.org/openpub/ > > Is it DFSG-free? > > Hmm.. > > | Any publication in standard (paper) book form shall require the > | citation of the original publisher and author. The publisher and > | author's names shall appear on all outer surfaces of the book. On > | all outer surfaces of the book the original publisher's name shall > | be as large as the title of the work and cited as possessive with > | respect to the title. > > I find this clause non-free, like the similar language in the GFDL. > | 2. The person making the modifications must be identified and the > |modifications dated. - > > This seems to fail the Dissident Test. > > | The location of the original unmodified document must be identified. > > What do we think of this? It seems to prevent any distribution of > derivate documents if the original has been lost or at least one does > not know any location where the original can be found. > > > Please CC me on reply. > Again let's try to find some internal consensus first. > > -- > Henning Makholm "We can build reactors, we can melt > ice. Or engineers can be sent north for >re-education until they *do* understand ice." The statement about finding internal consensus is very encouraging, if it will ever be followed by action from the people in the know. Here is the full story. I am preparing an update to a previously packaged software and already ran into a wall - documentation license. The software in question is Scribus a Desktop Publishing Application that, I believe, is already giving some well-entrenched and expensive professional applications such as Adobe InDesign and Quark Express a run for their money by providing much better pdf export capabilities. However, with a complex application of this level thorough and well organized documentation is a must. That's where the Debian related fun starts. The current documentation is licensed under the OPLv1.0 with an elective clause in part VI that prohibits publication in paper medium (books) without a written consent of the original authors. I realized that the latter clause would make the license not just DFSG non-free, but also GNU non-free, so I contacted the upstream authors and explained the situation to them. Later I had a conversation with both upstream authors who were quite forthcoming in their attempts to resolve this issue. However, their argument was that they chose the license in question simply because there weren't any other documentation licenses that would be free, but yet restricted the publication of the written documents by a commercial entity that would not be required to contribute back to the project. In my limited understanding it means that they believe that existing documentation licenses do not "restrict taking the freedoms away" in a way that GPL does it for the software. They said that and I took their word for it until I could consult this list. In the interim I requested and they agreed to remove the bundled documentation from the software and substitute it with build-time detection of it for distributions that do not adhere to such strict policy as DFSG and with run-time detection of it for me to be able to make a separate debian package that could go into non-free. However, with the rumors of non-free being excluded from the distribution this summer that prospect does not look very good either. All in all this whole issue raises a question about Debian being able to distribute ANY documentation within the distribution. How can Debian continue to be a great distribution like it is without the documentation, especially after closing the regular documentation loophole of the non-free archive. Frankly I do not see a way out of it short of establishing a "doc" archive in the place of non-free specifically to address this question or changing the "measure of freeiness" in the DFSG relative to documentation licenses. Neither one seems to be ready to meet an approval from the current audience. The ultimate question, of course, is what is the way for software documentation to be included into Debian? What license shall be used or what modifications shall be made to an existing license? Is it possible to release the documentation under a separate license _exclusively_ to Debian? The question for this particular cas is how can the above be done, while retaining something of the sort of OPLv1.0 Article VI clause B: "B. To prohibit any publication of this work or derivative works in whole or in part in standard (paper) book form for commercial purposes is prohibited unless prior permission is obtained from the copyright holder. To accompli
Re: crypto in non-free (again)
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote: [pgp5] > Besides, the Unix has a bug in the way it > reads /dev/random that make keys generated by it non-secure. I think that bug has been fixed in 5.0-6: * Reading from /dev/random now really produces random data. Fixes a grave bug in the woody fork. (#64609) signature.asc Description: Digital signature
If DFSG apply to non-software, is GPL*L* incompatible with DFSG?
Last year, when the controversy over whether the DFSG applies to documentation (in particular GNU-FDL-ed documentation), I meant to mention to someone (but promptly forgot) that the license under which the text of the FSF's licenses (GPL, LGPL, FDL) are licensed is much stricter than even the FDL so cearly violates the DFSG (if they apply to it). The GPL &c are allowed to be copied only in full without any modifications. If the DFSG do apply to non-software -- has a descision been made on this? -- this would I think effectively stop Debian from distributing any GPLed work on a CD which conforms to the DFSG.
Re: crypto in non-free (again)
On Sat, Feb 28, 2004 at 02:49:20PM +0100, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote: > On Sat, Feb 28, 2004 at 09:18:03AM +, Ian Beckwith wrote: > > If I understand things correctly, their licenses would permit the > > move (ie meet the EAR requirements) , and in the case of rsaref2 and > > pgp5i, the only thing holding them in non-us is the RSA patent, > > which I believe expired in September 2000. > pgp5 isn't DFSG-free, if I remember well: It can be used only for > non-commercial purposes. Besides, the Unix has a bug in the way it (The Unix version) > reads /dev/random that make keys generated by it non-secure. I've read your message too fast. I've read "non-free" instead of "non-US". Ignore my reply. -- Lionel
Re: crypto in non-free (again)
On Sat, Feb 28, 2004 at 09:18:03AM +, Ian Beckwith wrote: > If I understand things correctly, their licenses would permit the > move (ie meet the EAR requirements) , and in the case of rsaref2 and > pgp5i, the only thing holding them in non-us is the RSA patent, > which I believe expired in September 2000. pgp5 isn't DFSG-free, if I remember well: It can be used only for non-commercial purposes. Besides, the Unix has a bug in the way it reads /dev/random that make keys generated by it non-secure. -- Lionel
Re: Is Open Publication License v1.0 compatible?
Scripsit Oleksandr Moskalenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I'd like to package an html manual for the package I'm preparing. > However, it's covered by the Open Publication License v 1.0. > http://opencontent.org/openpub/ > Is it DFSG-free? Hmm.. | Any publication in standard (paper) book form shall require the | citation of the original publisher and author. The publisher and | author's names shall appear on all outer surfaces of the book. On | all outer surfaces of the book the original publisher's name shall | be as large as the title of the work and cited as possessive with | respect to the title. I find this clause non-free, like the similar language in the GFDL. | 2. The person making the modifications must be identified and the |modifications dated. - This seems to fail the Dissident Test. | The location of the original unmodified document must be identified. What do we think of this? It seems to prevent any distribution of derivate documents if the original has been lost or at least one does not know any location where the original can be found. > Please CC me on reply. Again let's try to find some internal consensus first. -- Henning Makholm "We can build reactors, we can melt ice. Or engineers can be sent north for re-education until they *do* understand ice."
Re: crypto in non-free (again)
* Ian Beckwith ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040228 10:25]: > If I understand things correctly, their licenses would permit the move > (ie meet the EAR requirements) , and in the case of rsaref2 and pgp5i, > the only thing holding them in non-us is the RSA patent, which I > believe expired in September 2000. RSA has expired. But you'll need to make sure that this was the only issue. Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C
crypto in non-free (again)
Hello. A month ago, I raised the question of whether the packages in non-us/non-free could move to non-free. The discussion died out before there was any consensus, so I'm raising it again. There are two packages in non-us/non-free, pgp5i and rsaref2. ckermit, which I am adopting, would also need to move into non-us/non-free, as I am adding the crypto compile options. If I understand things correctly, their licenses would permit the move (ie meet the EAR requirements) , and in the case of rsaref2 and pgp5i, the only thing holding them in non-us is the RSA patent, which I believe expired in September 2000. I realise that as it is non-free, debian might not want to go through the hassle of EAR/BXA registration. any comments? Ian. PS I will soon be looking for a sponsor for uploading ckermit, please drop me a line if you can help. PPS Original thread starts at: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/debian-legal-200401/msg00294.html -- Ian Beckwith - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://nessie.mcc.ac.uk/~ianb/ GPG fingerprint: AF6C C0F1 1E74 424B BCD5 4814 40EC C154 A8BA C1EA Listening to: Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds - Let Love In - Red Right Hand
Re: Cypherpunks anti-License
On Feb 26, 2004, at 12:35, Branden Robinson wrote: > Not true. Governments can (and have) passed legislation to yank a work > out of the public domain and put it back under copyright. Anthony DeRobertis wrote in response: > Mickey Mouse Copyright Extension Act No; the MMCEA (or whatever the real abbreviation was) kept all public domain works public domain under a grandfather clause. In recent history, the only US law that put public domain works back into copyright was the URAA, which only put works back into copyright that had left copyright soley due to technicalities of US law and that were still under copyright in their home countries. As extensions of copyright go, it was relatively fair. -- ___ Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm
