Re: A new practical problem with invariant sections?

[Gledd Maynard]

On Fri, Feb 17, 2006 at 06:32:58PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> And, further, the GFDL says I must preserve invariant sections
> "unaltered in their text", not "unaltered in their octects"; I seriously
> doubt that'd count...

Would I be in violation if I was to take a GNU manual, untar it, uuencode
the GNU Manifesto, re-tar the whole thing, and distribute it?  I'm not
sure; it's not clear from the license.


(Jesus.  Prohibits renaming sections titled "History", "Acknowledgements",
and "Dedications"--if "Changes" and "Thanks" are more to the tone of the
work, forget it.  Requires *adding* an unrenamable section "History" if
it's not there.  Requires preserving all "dedications", so if I use a few
pages from another manual, and that manual says "dedicated to my mom", I
have to say "dedicated to that other guy's mom".  It requires the deletion
of any section named "Endorsements", even if it's a chapter in a business
textbook discussing endorsements, rather than a list of endorsements.  It
requires adding a copyright notice, even if you choose to place your changes
in the public domain.  It prohibits translating "History", etc. directly;
it requires that you leave it in English first, with translations forced
into parentheses.  It seems to require that HTML be "simple" and "standard-
conforming".)

Nothing new in that, just the stuff I cringed at while trying to answer
the above question.  It's sickening that people are trying so hard to cram
this license into Debian.

-- 
Glenn Maynard


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: A new practical problem with invariant sections?

[Anthony DeRobertis]

Nathanael Nerode wrote:

> Oh, it's possible, the section just ends up as unreadable garbage.  Nothing 
> in 
> the GFDL requires that the invariant sections be readable.

Well, actually, its not because devices easily barf on things that
aren't ASCII.

And, further, the GFDL says I must preserve invariant sections
"unaltered in their text", not "unaltered in their octects"; I seriously
doubt that'd count...


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: A new practical problem with invariant sections?

[Anthony DeRobertis]

Yorick Cool wrote:

> Seeing as that is a void condition which is totally unenforceable[1], the
> license is just the same as if the condition were inexistent, so yeah,
> it's as good as free.

Ok, I think my point has been missed. After numerous examples (having to
carry around page after page of obselete invariant sections, possibly
not being able to distribute the document for devices not capable of
displaying all the world's languages, etc.) having all been dismissed as
 (paraphrasing) "not a freeness issue, just a convenience issue", I am
curious as to the people stating stuff like that define freedom, for in
the several dictionaries I have checked, it is always defined along the
lines of:

"the quality or state of being free: as a : the absence of necessity,
coercion, or constraint in choice or action"[0]

which, as I read it, includes convenience issues.


So I asked an example of a "convenience issue" that I hoped would be so
extreme that maybe, just maybe, we could agree that at some point,
inconveniences become large enough to impact freeness. Or, as Gledd
Maynard put it, "When people agree with the extreme case, and still
disagree with the argument, they've established outer boundaries to
narrow in on where they believe the line lies, and why; and it's a
useful step in determining when that line is blurry (where 'bright line
tests' don't exist)."[1]


I realize, also, that my quick example has violations of various clauses
of the DFSG.



[0]: http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=freedom
[1]: Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: A new practical problem with invariant sections?

[Anthony DeRobertis]

Adam McKenna wrote:

> I don't know of any device that rejects files of a particular encoding.  Can
> you give an example of such a device?

My portable music player barfs pretty badly on anything that isn't ASCII.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Regarding partner

[Steve Langasek]

On Thu, Feb 16, 2006 at 07:31:59AM -0800, Jim Westveer wrote:
> Natarajan,

> I am most likely not the person to be asking these questions of.

> You ask: 
> >Can I conduct a Course called Debian Certified Engineer (DCE) 
> >without asking permission  anybody
> You may want to ask this question on the debian-legal list.  One 
> could certainly have a "Certified Engineer" program, that included
> the Debian OS.  But in my humble opinion, a "Debian Certified Engineer"
> program sounds like it is certified by Debian.  But again, you probably
> should run that by others to get their impressions.  

Actually, decisions on new, not already standardized uses of the Debian
trademark probably need to be made by either the DPL or the debian-project
mailing list.  Forwarding to the latter.

As far as whether use of the name "Debian Certified Engineer" needs
permission from Debian, the answer is definitely yes.

Cheers,
-- 
Steve Langasek   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer   to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://www.debian.org/

> You also ask:
> >If it is possible then will you give me a support for Debian.
> I am not clearly understanding what you want here.  I personally
> support and applaud your setting up such a program, but my support
> is not an "Official" endorsement.  You may also want to see if others
> in Debian have similar interests and solicit their help and advice.

> If I can be of any assistance, feel free to contact me.

> On Wednesday 15 February 2006 07:56 pm, you wrote:
> > Dear Jim Westveer
> >
> >Thanks for your response,I have one small doubt,ie. Can I conduct a
> > Course called Debian Certified Engineer (DCE) without asking permission
> > anybody,in my newly opening institute.If it is possible then will you give
> > me a support for Debian.
> >
> > Thanks and Regards
> > Natarajan Solaiappan.B.E.,RHCE
> >
> > On 2/15/06, Jim Westveer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Natarajan,
> > >
> > > Thanks for your note about your training ideas.
> > > Although Debian does not have a "Certification" as such,
> > > you may want to review the Debian webpages under
> > > support, and other information available on the web.
> > > ( http://www.debian.org/support )
> > >
> > > If I can be of any assistance, feel free to contact me.
> > > --
> > >
> > > Jim Westveer
> > > 
> > > I wish there was a button on my computer for intelligence.
> > > There's a button called `brightness', but it doesn't work.
> > > 
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]  1-425-591-3002
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]  pgp-key 36129
> > >
> > > On Tuesday 14 February 2006 10:23 pm, you wrote:
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > > This is Natarajan Solaiappan.I am going to start new institute at
> > > > Hyderabad(India).I want to conduct Specifically Debian Linux course and
> > > > also I want to Create certification like DCE (Debian Certified Engineer
> > >
> > > )
> > >
> > > > which we can make it equal to RHCE., So please send me the details
> > > > about the training program and certification
> > > >
> > > > *Thanks and Regards*
> > > > Natarajan Solaiappan.B.E.,RHCE
> > >
> > > 171
> > > 


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Software license used for SHA-2 reference code

[Mark Rafn]

On Fri, 17 Feb 2006, Marco d'Itri wrote:


It looks fine to me, but if it's still a draft then I think it would be
useful to use a wording less vague than "misleading author or version
information".


Agreed.  It's fine to say that the package must be labelled as to 
modifications made, but this phrasing seems to open the door to api-level 
requirements (like the filename or in-code version string cannot be 
"misleading", whatever that means).

--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Software license used for SHA-2 reference code

[Simon Josefsson]

Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>Hi.  A newly approved IETF document contains reference code for SHA-2,
>>and they propose to use the following license:
>
>>Is this DFSG-free?
> It looks fine to me, but if it's still a draft then I think it would be
> useful to use a wording less vague than "misleading author or version
> information".

Suggestions?

The "author information" seem clear to me, but I have no idea what the
"version information" refer to.

Thanks.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: A new practical problem with invariant sections?

[Henning Makholm]

Scripsit Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> Perhaps we should consider amending section 4 of the DFSG so
> that instead of only allowing one restriction on modification (changes
> must be distributed in source form as patches to the unmodified
> sources) to allowing any restrictions on a Debian Free Software
> Warts List.  This "warts" list would include the patch, and would
> also include some other carefully chosen statements about what
> we allow.

I agree that explicitly listing which restrictions we _do_ allow in
free software would be much saner than trying to list restrictions
that we do not allow.

> We might also want to stipulate that software without warts
> can't depend on software with warts (I don't think we currently
> do this, but if we're increasing our risk of running into
> problems, we should try to contain those risks).

I think that would be too difficult to manage. Either we consider the
wart free and allow everything else to depend on it, or we consider it
non-fee and classify software appropriately.

(Observant readers may remember that I tried to start some discussion
about rewriting the DFSG along these lines some years ago, at
).

-- 
Henning Makholm  "I tried whacking myself repeatedly
 with the cluebat. Unfortunately, it was
 not as effective as whacking someone else."


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Software license used for SHA-2 reference code

[Marco d'Itri]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

>Hi.  A newly approved IETF document contains reference code for SHA-2,
>and they propose to use the following license:

>Is this DFSG-free?
It looks fine to me, but if it's still a draft then I think it would be
useful to use a wording less vague than "misleading author or version
information".

-- 
ciao,
Marco


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Software license used for SHA-2 reference code

[Steve Langasek]

On Fri, Feb 17, 2006 at 11:27:09AM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> >>Royalty free license to copy and use this software is granted,
> >>provided that redistributed derivative works do not contain
> >>misleading author or version information.  Royalty free license is
> >>also granted to make and use derivative works provided that such
> >>works are identified as derived from this work.

> > The license grants permission to use, copy, create derivative works, and
> > redistribute.  The only stipulations are that the original author be
> > credited, and derivative works be labeled; and there's a warranty
> > disclaimer.  

> And when you violate the license by distributing modified versions with
> misleading information, you loose your right to copy and use the
> software.  But that's not a freeness problem, I guess.

Yeah, it isn't, because under copyright law you don't *need* a license in
order to use a copy of the work.

Cheers,
-- 
Steve Langasek   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer   to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://www.debian.org/


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Software license used for SHA-2 reference code

[Frank Küster]

Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>>Royalty free license to copy and use this software is granted,
>>provided that redistributed derivative works do not contain
>>misleading author or version information.  Royalty free license is
>>also granted to make and use derivative works provided that such
>>works are identified as derived from this work.
[...]
> The license grants permission to use, copy, create derivative works, and
> redistribute.  The only stipulations are that the original author be
> credited, and derivative works be labeled; and there's a warranty
> disclaimer.  

And when you violate the license by distributing modified versions with
misleading information, you loose your right to copy and use the
software.  But that's not a freeness problem, I guess.

> I think this is clearly DFSG-compliant.

Regards, Frank
-- 
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX)

Re: Software license used for SHA-2 reference code

[Simon Josefsson]

Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Hi Simon,
>
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2006 at 10:22:32AM +0100, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> Hi.  A newly approved IETF document contains reference code for SHA-2,
>> and they propose to use the following license:
>
>> 1.1 License
>
>>Royalty free license to copy and use this software is granted,
>>provided that redistributed derivative works do not contain
>>misleading author or version information.  Royalty free license is
>>also granted to make and use derivative works provided that such
>>works are identified as derived from this work.
>
>>The authors make no representations concerning either the
>>merchantability of this software or the suitability of this software
>>for any particular purpose. It is provided "as is" without express or
>>implied warranty of any kind.
>
>> Is this DFSG-free?
>
>> I'm sorry that I'm asking for licenses on a piece of work that is not
>> targeted for inclusion into Debian at this point.  However, I suspect
>> that the reference code in this RFC will end up in several projects
>> sooner or later.  It is only now we have an opportunity to influence
>> the license chosen.
>
>> Please try to be conservative in proposing fixes to the license.
>
> The license grants permission to use, copy, create derivative works, and
> redistribute.  The only stipulations are that the original author be
> credited, and derivative works be labeled; and there's a warranty
> disclaimer.  I think this is clearly DFSG-compliant.

Excellent, thanks Steve!  FWIW, I agree that it is a free license.

I've forwarded this to the original authors.

/Simon


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Software license used for SHA-2 reference code

[Simon Josefsson]

Hi.  A newly approved IETF document contains reference code for SHA-2,
and they propose to use the following license:

1.1 License

   Royalty free license to copy and use this software is granted,
   provided that redistributed derivative works do not contain
   misleading author or version information.  Royalty free license is
   also granted to make and use derivative works provided that such
   works are identified as derived from this work.

   The authors make no representations concerning either the
   merchantability of this software or the suitability of this software
   for any particular purpose. It is provided "as is" without express or
   implied warranty of any kind.

Is this DFSG-free?

I'm sorry that I'm asking for licenses on a piece of work that is not
targeted for inclusion into Debian at this point.  However, I suspect
that the reference code in this RFC will end up in several projects
sooner or later.  It is only now we have an opportunity to influence
the license chosen.

Please try to be conservative in proposing fixes to the license.

Thanks.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Software license used for SHA-2 reference code

[Steve Langasek]

Hi Simon,

On Fri, Feb 17, 2006 at 10:22:32AM +0100, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Hi.  A newly approved IETF document contains reference code for SHA-2,
> and they propose to use the following license:

> 1.1 License

>Royalty free license to copy and use this software is granted,
>provided that redistributed derivative works do not contain
>misleading author or version information.  Royalty free license is
>also granted to make and use derivative works provided that such
>works are identified as derived from this work.

>The authors make no representations concerning either the
>merchantability of this software or the suitability of this software
>for any particular purpose. It is provided "as is" without express or
>implied warranty of any kind.

> Is this DFSG-free?

> I'm sorry that I'm asking for licenses on a piece of work that is not
> targeted for inclusion into Debian at this point.  However, I suspect
> that the reference code in this RFC will end up in several projects
> sooner or later.  It is only now we have an opportunity to influence
> the license chosen.

> Please try to be conservative in proposing fixes to the license.

The license grants permission to use, copy, create derivative works, and
redistribute.  The only stipulations are that the original author be
credited, and derivative works be labeled; and there's a warranty
disclaimer.  I think this is clearly DFSG-compliant.

Thanks,
-- 
Steve Langasek   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer   to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://www.debian.org/


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature