Re: NetBeans ITP [was Re: CDDL]
Le samedi 02 décembre 2006 18:18, Tom Marble a écrit : > Marco d'Itri wrote: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > >> I watched Sun's Simon Phipps' talk at debconf 2006 few weeks ago. > >> It was mentioned that the choice of venue was useless and would be > >> removed from CDDL, thus making CDDL DSFG-compliant. > > There is no consensus that choice of venue clauses are not > > DSFG-compliant, anyway. > > Indeed allow me to appeal to everyone to reconsider CDDL *as is* > given the clarification that Simon has provided in this regard [1]. > > Why is this important? Because Sun has several software projects > that are licensed under CDDL that we would really, really like > accepted into Debian. The key example is our NetBeans IDE. > The purpose of packaging NetBeans for Debian is to give Free > Software developers *a chance* to evaluate this development tool > and compare it to other tools available. Thanks for mentioning Netbeans, Tom. This is exactly the application I had in mind. I chose it over Eclipse for my Java development and I'd like very much to be part of main some day. Regards, -- Jérôme Marant -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CDDL
> > Unless they upgrade the license of such software, I guess? > > Which would be relicensing and requires agreement from all contributors, > as any other relicensing. Exactly. But it should not be a problem for Sun products I'm thinking about. Thanks. -- Jérôme Marant -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CDDL
Le vendredi 01 décembre 2006 18:44, Mike Hommey a écrit : > On Fri, Dec 01, 2006 at 12:03:46PM +0100, Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I watched Sun's Simon Phipps' talk at debconf 2006 few weeks ago. > > It was mentioned that the choice of venue was useless and would be > > removed from CDDL, thus making CDDL DSFG-compliant. > > > > Does anybody know if is it still a work in progress? Does anyone have > > contacts with Sun people about the issue? > > Note that even if that happens, that won't change the licensing terms > for the software already released under current CDDL. Unless they upgrade the license of such software, I guess? -- Jérôme Marant -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CDDL
Hi, I watched Sun's Simon Phipps' talk at debconf 2006 few weeks ago. It was mentioned that the choice of venue was useless and would be removed from CDDL, thus making CDDL DSFG-compliant. Does anybody know if is it still a work in progress? Does anyone have contacts with Sun people about the issue? Thanks. Regards, -- Jérôme Marant -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFH: Non-free files in Emacs
dman.
[MAIN] might be usefull. Noah probably assigned his copyright to the FSF
> emacs.csh
> -- By Michael DeCorte.
[MAIN] Likewise.
> enriched.doc
[MAIN] text sample of emacs editing capabilities
> future-bug
> -- Email message by Karl Fogel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
[CRUFT]
> ledit.l
[CRUFT]
> ms-78kermit
> -- Post-1988 (1989). Author "Andy Lowry".
[MAIN] or [CRUFT] terminals settings
> ms-kermit
> -- Post-1988 (1990). Author "Robert Earl ([EMAIL PROTECTED])"
[MAIN] or [CRUFT] terminals settings
> sex.6
> -- Issued without copyright notice prior to 1988 (1987),
> so it's in the public domain.
[CRUFT]
> spook.lines
> -- unlikely to be copyrightable, so I would assume it is public
> domain
[CRUFT]
> tasks.texi
> -- Post-1988. Probably not subject to
> general emacs license, since it seems to be very much not part of
> emacs. An essentially obselete document ("last updated January 15,
> 2001"). See ORDERS.EUROPE.
[CRUFT]
> ulimit.hack
> -- Note that this is a piece of obselete junk which should
> really be removed upstream. See ORDERS.EUROPE.
[CRUFT]
> yow.lines
> -- large numbers of quotations from Bill Griffith's Zippy comics,
> without permission. There are so damn many of them that it
> worries me. (Unlike the other lists, which don't consist entirely
> of work by one author.) I'd remove it. Any other people want
> to weigh in?
[CRUFT]
> And the license-free graphics files. These probably have a better
> claim to be "part of emacs" and under the general license than the
> rest, because there's no place to put a separate license statement
> in these files.
>
> emacs.icon
> emacs.xbm
> gnu.xpm
> gnus-pointer.xbm
> gnus-pointer.xpm
> gnus.pbm
> gnus.xpm
> letter.xbm
> splash.pbm
> splash.xpm
> splash8.xpm
[MAIN] I think they are GPL.
Thanks!
--
Jérôme Marant
Re: RFH: Non-free files in Emacs
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathanael Nerode) writes: > Files in the /etc directory of emacs21 which may be legally problematic > follow. Thank you very much. This is an impressive piece of work. I'll take some time to read it cautiously and come back if any question. Cheers, -- Jérôme Marant
Re: FYI: Savannah seems to reject "GPLv2 only" projects
Florent Bayle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Le Mercredi 22 Mars 2006 01:13, Francesco Poli a écrit : > [...] >> It seems that I must find another place to have my project hosted... >> >> Sourceforge provides services by running proprietary tools: I don't want >> to get used to something that is non-free (and could even suddenly >> become only available for a fee). >> Savannah was born for this very reason... >> >> Other similar project-hosting services? >> Any suggestions? > > https://www.gna.org/ Gna does not accept GPL v2 only projects either. -- Jérôme Marant
Re: RFH: Non-free files in Emacs
Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Just to confirm the parameters of this review, are you assuming that any > file not explicitly licensed falls under the GPL of Emacs? Or should we > flag files which have no explicit license? Quite a number of the files > in etc/ have no explicit license. This is a very good question, I asked myself already. I tend to think that when no licensing information is given, the COPYING applies. But since I'm not a licensing specialist, I'd like a confirmation. > Also, etc/MOTIVATION contains: >> [reprinted with permission of the author >> from the Monday 19 January 1987 Boston Globe] > with no license notice given, and authorization to reprint does not > necessarily include authorization to modify. I would not be surpised this one really lacks a proper license. Thanks. -- Jérôme Marant
Re: Non-free files in Emacs
"Joe Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Jérôme Marant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>The following files have already been identified as offending:
>>etc/{CENSORSHIP,copying.paper,INTERVIEW,LINUX-GNU,THE-GNU-PROJECT,WHY-FREE}
>
> Following are are nonfree documents found in cygwin's Emacs disto
> besides what you mentioned above.
> These are probably also in Debian's.
>
> etc/GNU
> etc/DISTRIB
Thanks!
--
Jérôme Marant
Re: RFH: Non-free files in Emacs
Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > * Jérôme Marant: > >> Far away from flamewars and heated discussions, the Emacs maintainers >> (Rob Browning and I) are in a process of moving non-free files to >> a dedicated package. > > What about the Texinfo documentation? Currently, it's GFDL plus > invariant sections. Their are part of the "non-free files" but they are well identified, so they don't need any investigation, unlike etc files. -- Jérôme Marant
RFH: Non-free files in Emacs
Dear debian-legal,
Far away from flamewars and heated discussions, the Emacs maintainers
(Rob Browning and I) are in a process of moving non-free files to
a dedicated package.
In order to avoid repackaging as much as possible once done, we would
like to make sure that any problematic file has been identified
(they are all located in /usr/share/emacs/21.4/etc), so a second
review would be welcome.
The following files have already been identified as offending:
etc/{CENSORSHIP,copying.paper,INTERVIEW,LINUX-GNU,THE-GNU-PROJECT,WHY-FREE}
Thanks in advance for your help.
--
Jérôme Marant
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#207932: Statement that all of Debian needs to be Free?
(Please respect MFT) > On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 10:13:39PM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote: > > They are out of the scope of the DFSG. They are neither programs nor > > documentation: they are speeches and articles which are logically > > non modifiable without the consent of their author. > > Sorry, you're wrong. The Social Contract states that everything in > Debian must be free, with the DFSG being the guidelines to determine > whether a work is free. This has been discussed at extreme length, > culminating in SC2004-003, which affirmed that everything in Debian > must be free, regardless of whether it's labelled "program", "software", > "documentation", "data", "font", "manifesto", "speech", "article" > or anything else. Streams of bits, regardless of content, must be > freely modifiable, with the sole exception of license texts, or they > can not be in Debian. The Social Contract needs to be changed then, if it leads to such a silliness. > I don't feel this is an interesting line of debate; you're arguing > as if you missed the thousands of messages leading up to and surrounding > SC2004-003, and I don't feel compelled to repeat those discussions. Yes, please don't bother repeating those pointless discussions. > The Social Contract and the DFSG apply to everything in Debian, not > just the parts that are convenient to you. Just go away and find yourself another sandbox. You don't have any kind of authority upon us. -- Jérôme Marant
Re: Bug#207932: Statement that all of Debian needs to be Free?
"Michael K. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> They are out of the scope of the DFSG. They are neither programs nor >> documentation: they are speeches and articles which are logically >> non modifiable without the consent of their author. >> >> Whether they are around or not is irrelevant to the freeness of Emacs. > > IMHO, Jérôme is right but for the wrong reasons. In many > jurisdictions (especially France, but other parts of US law besides > copyright have similar consequences), copyright license does not and > cannot grant authority to misattribute or violate the integrity of an > artistic or polemical work. These documents are not part of the "work > of authorship" that is the Emacs program and documentation. They may > be retained or removed; but they may not be arbitrarily modified. > > Personally, I would retain them as a courtesy to upstream; users are > no more and no less free to modify or remove them than Debian is. The > alternative -- to demand that all content other than license texts and > other legal indicia must be arbitrarily modifiable in order to be > DFSG-free -- is logically consistent but would require the removal of > all remotely "artistic" or "polemical" works in the Debian archive. At last, someone with some bits of common sense here! Full Ack. -- Jérôme Marant
Re: Bug#207932: Statement that all of Debian needs to be Free?
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> etc/{CENSORSHIP,copying.paper,INTERVIEW,LINUX-GNU,THE-GNU-PROJECT,WHY-FREE}
>
> only "copying.paper" sounds like a license; the rest are simply documents,
> which must be DFSG-free to be in Debian. This is not a matter of
> controversy, or even significant disagreement; SC2004-003 made this
> explicitly clear. Please remove these non-free documents; the grace
> period allowed by SC2004-004 expired with the release of sarge.
They are out of the scope of the DFSG. They are neither programs nor
documentation: they are speeches and articles which are logically
non modifiable without the consent of their author.
Whether they are around or not is irrelevant to the freeness of Emacs.
--
Jérôme Marant
Re: solution to GFDL and DSFG problem
Quoting Dylan Thurston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > I'm sorry, but I can't parse this, nor the remainder of your post. > > Look at the name. Evidently someone is making a joke in poor taste > about people whose native language is not English. I have another explaination: he changed his identity and address in order to bypass killfiles. Cheers, -- Jérôme Marant
My understanding of the GFDL issue
Hi, I'd like to thank people who helped me making those things clear, and especialy Nathanael Nerode and Josselin Mouette. I think I can share my understanding of the GFDL problem to debian-legal newcomers or those who did not participate to the debate. I took me quite some time to understand but I think I made progress in the right direction. Please correct me if I'm wrong. - According to Social Contract, clause 1, every byte in Debian is software and must be free, no matter it is program, documentation, data, whatever - A software in Debian is considered as free if it fullfills the Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG) - the GDFL is not DFSG-compliant, which means that any _work_ licensed under GFDL cannot be distributed in main - additionaly, the GFDL is not GPL-compatible so one cannot mix GFDL _works_ and GPL _works_ Basically, studying the Social Contract and the DFSG should be enough to lead to the same conclusion. What is irrelvant in debian-legal and can be changed through a General Resolution (GR), in the debian-project list: - Do we have to limit software to computer programs and have separate guidelines for documentation? I'll personaly never been in favour of a big GFDL documentation purge in main because I feel that our users are innocent victims of Debian vs FSF disagreement and will be disappointed of seeing their manual vanish. However, one has to admit that there is no obvious solution at present. I hope that Debian and the FSF will keep on discussing and working together and some solution will be found in the middle run to satisfy our users. Finally, in order to make things clear, debian legal people are neither zealots nor bigots. Please accept my apologies if I offended you with what was meant to be a joke. It looks like some words shall never be used in jokes :-( Thanks for reading. Best Regards, -- Jérôme Marant
Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy
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: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy
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: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy
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. > If you think that Debian's software should remain 100% free, but > Debian's non-software, if such a thing exists, does not need to be free, > then propose a GR. debian-legal is not the place to propose GRs. No need for a GR. > > > Oh, and where the GFDL is concerned, what you apparently mean to say is, > > > "I see nothing wrong with requiring all distributors to also > > > distribute Free Software advocacy". I do: it's a restriction on > > > freedom. > > > > Free software is based on restrictions because they are needed to > > guaranty freedom. Free software obliges me to publish the source > > code with binaries. So, if I understand correctly, I'm not free > > to do what I want with my source? > > You are free to do whatever you want with *your* source, just not > someone else's source. > > 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. > > Free software advocacy is such a restriction I do consider as > > acceptable. > > There are many things in this world more important, I think, than free > software. Many people would agree with me about most of then (ending war > and hunger, providing universal education, an end to racism, and so on). > If we consider free software advocacy an acceptable restriction because > we believe free software to be important, do we also accept advocacy for > all of these as acceptable restrictions? > > What about anti-nuclear power advocacy? What about pro-racism advocacy? (against, I'm not dealing with GFDL) This would be a case per case study. As an individual, I would study and decide what can be kept or not. > The GFDL's invariant sections are not restricted to things you agree > with. If a useful program's GFDLd manual has an invariant pro-racism > diatribe in it, will you distribute the manual? > > What if it has a pro-proprietary software diatribe? We are no longer dealing with GFDL here. Please follow the thread properly. > > > > > that a "verbatim copying only" license is Free?) > > > > > > > I claim that a speech is not software documentation and shall not be > > > > considered as such. You shall not modify someone speech, you shall > > > > not cut some part of someone's speech and tell everyone that you > > > > wrote it, and so on. > > > > There are limits everywhere in everyone's freedom. > > > > > > We shall not distribute it. > > > > This is an extreme vision of freedom I do not share. > > So Debian doesn't have the freedom to *not* distribute GNU manuals? This > makes no sense. This discussion was not about GFDL manuals. -- Jérôme Marant
Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy
Quoting Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Then you are also asserting that Jérôme is not fluent in French either. > The translated clause writes as: > « Debian demeurera un ensemble logiciel totalement libre. » > This sentence is perfectly clear, and can not be read as: > « L'ensemble des logiciels dans Debian demeureront totalement libres. » I've never read the French translation. Translations are usually not accurate. I trust more what Nathanoel said and I can admit I misinterpreted this clause of the Social Contract. > However, I believe Jérôme can read correctly and is not stupid; maybe he > said that on purpose, and wants the social contract to be changed. I don't need a spokesman. -- Jérôme Marant
Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy
Quoting Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Jerome Marant said:
> >Software in Debian is 100% free. It doesn't prevent Debian to
> >distribute something else than software.
>
> >From this sentence, I see that you are not fluent in English.
> ("It doesn't prevent Debian from distributing something other than
> software" would be correct.)
Thanks.
> Perhaps this is in fact the source of your confusion. The phrase
> "Debian will remain 100% Free Software", interpreted by a fluent English
> speaker, means one of the following:
> 100% of Debian is (and will remain) "Free Software"
>
> Debian is (and will remain) "Software", and that Software is "100% Free"
>
> Practically, the difference between these is not significant, although the
> second interpretation is a little bizarre.
>
> Your interpretation is:
> 100% of the Software in Debian will remain Free
> That's simply not a correct interpretation. However, I could understand if
> someone who was not fluent in English misinterpreted it that way.
I think you got it. It was too ambiguous for me. Thanks for the clarification.
I've been deceived.
--
Jérôme Marant
Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy
Quoting Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Not at all. I don't care being wrong. I just request being respected > > within a serious discussion. Is it too much to ask? > > Oh, the irony. You want to be respected by tohse you call > zealots and bigots? If you can make no difference between jokes and serious discussions, then you have a real problem in your life. You're overreacting and you always feel offended. I'm afraid, I can't do anything for you. Now, please stop reminding this joke whenever we want to discuss seriously between gentle men. Friendly, -- Jérôme Marant "If you can't get a life, at least, get a sense of humour" -- Branden Robinson.
Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy
Quoting Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 05:35:13PM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote: > > Quoting Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > Jerome Marant, missing the point AGAIN, said: > > ^^^ > > > > Considering your attitude, I'm not going to discuss this with you > > any longer. > > It is annoying when people point out your distortions, isn't it? Does it make you happy this time? kinda revenge? Sorta punishment after my small joke? > Makes it considerably more difficult to cheat fair and sqaure. Not at all. I don't care being wrong. I just request being respected within a serious discussion. Is it too much to ask? -- Jérôme Marant
Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy
Quoting Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > If they'd be out of the scope of DFSG, why would we care of them being > > there or not? I see nothing wrong in distributing Free Software > > advocacy. > > If we distribute it, it is currently not out of the scope of the DFSG. > If you have a problem with this, write a GR -- but stop with the > pointless grandstanding. Software in Debian is 100% free. It doesn't prevent Debian to distribute something else than software. > Oh, and where the GFDL is concerned, what you apparently mean to say is, > "I see nothing wrong with requiring all distributors to also > distribute Free Software advocacy". I do: it's a restriction on > freedom. Free software is based on restrictions because they are needed to guaranty freedom. Free software obliges me to publish the source code with binaries. So, if I understand correctly, I'm not free to do what I want with my source? Free software advocacy is such a restriction I do consider as acceptable. > > > that a "verbatim copying only" license is Free?) > > > I claim that a speech is not software documentation and shall not be > > considered as such. You shall not modify someone speech, you shall > > not cut some part of someone's speech and tell everyone that you > > wrote it, and so on. > > There are limits everywhere in everyone's freedom. > > We shall not distribute it. This is an extreme vision of freedom I do not share. -- Jérôme Marant
Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy
Quoting Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Jerome Marant, missing the point AGAIN, said: ^^^ Considering your attitude, I'm not going to discuss this with you any longer. -- Jérôme Marant
Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy
Quoting Stephen Stafford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 11:11:14AM +0200, J?r?me Marant wrote: > > > > Let's play fair now: > > > > >From WordNet (r) 1.7 : > > > > software > >n : (computer science) written programs or procedures or rules > >and associated documentation pertaining to the operation > >of a computer system and that are stored in read/write > >memory; "the market for software is expected to expand" > > > > I do not consider those files are "associated documentation". They > > do not document the program they come with, unlike the manual. > > > > If the files are not "associated" then why are they THERE? If they are not If they'd be out of the scope of DFSG, why would we care of them being there or not? I see nothing wrong in distributing Free Software advocacy. > associated, we can remove them. The license means we can NOT remove them, > therefore, they are associated and are non-free. (or are you going to claim No, we can remove them. > that a "verbatim copying only" license is Free?) I claim that a speech is not software documentation and shall not be considered as such. You shall not modify someone speech, you shall not cut some part of someone's speech and tell everyone that you wrote it, and so on. There are limits everywhere in everyone's freedom. > > > > No, qmail is non-free software and would not go into Debian. > > Considering we HAVE to include these non-free components, then neither is > emacs free. Again, keeping those files in Emacs doesn't make Debian less free, because they neither programs nor documentation so out of the scope of DFSG. -- Jérôme Marant
Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy
Quoting Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Mon, 2003-08-25 at 03:18, Jérôme Marant wrote: > > Quoting Dylan Thurston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > > etc/emacs.1:under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, > Version > > > 1.1 > > > > ... > > > > Requesting removal of GNU Emacs manpages now? Better move Emacs to > > non-free. > > Or take a free version of the Emacs (say, from Emacs 20, if that's the > case), and include it. I doubt command line options have changed much. This is stupid, isn't it? > > > Not too mention all the clearly non-free cruft under etc/ (including > > > various essays, like etc/LINUX-GNU, allowing only verbatim copying). > > > See Bug #154043. > > > > This "cruft" doesn't hurt and is not likely to be modified (who's gonna > > modify RMS speeches and GNU Manifesto?). > > Someone who wants to publish them in a book? Convert them to HTML? I'm sure there wouldn't be any problem with it. > Excerpt large portions of them for an article? It is common to ask permission for quoting someone speeches. Even to give an article for reviewal before publishing it. But we are out of the scope of software freedom. > > It is neither documentation > > nor program (considering that documentation is part of software now). > > Those of us saying that everything Debian distributes is software will > continue to say it here - this is software. It's very very simple > software, all it does is instructor an interpreter like less or cat to > draw characters to a a terminal. But it's software, even if it's not a > "program" or documentation for a program. Let's play fair now: >From WordNet (r) 1.7 : software n : (computer science) written programs or procedures or rules and associated documentation pertaining to the operation of a computer system and that are stored in read/write memory; "the market for software is expected to expand" I do not consider those files are "associated documentation". They do not document the program they come with, unlike the manual. > > Removing such files won't make Debian more free, IMO. > > We might as well add non-free programs that no one wants to modify to > main, too. It won't make Debian any less free. > > I think qmail would make a great first package for this new "if I don't > want to modify it, it's free no matter what" policy; I hear it's written > so expertly that the author doesn't want anyone else perverting his > "vision" of the code. No, qmail is non-free software and would not go into Debian. -- Jérôme Marant
Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy
Quoting Dylan Thurston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > etc/emacs.1:under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version > 1.1 > > ... Requesting removal of GNU Emacs manpages now? Better move Emacs to non-free. > Not too mention all the clearly non-free cruft under etc/ (including > various essays, like etc/LINUX-GNU, allowing only verbatim copying). > See Bug #154043. This "cruft" doesn't hurt and is not likely to be modified (who's gonna modify RMS speeches and GNU Manifesto?). It is neither documentation nor program (considering that documentation is part of software now). Removing such files won't make Debian more free, IMO. -- Jérôme Marant
Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy
Quoting Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Anthony Towns wrote: > >In short, some members of the FSF have asked for us to give them some > >more time to come up with a GFDL that's DFSG-free before we go all > >gung-ho about putting it in non-free and having bigger controversies. > >Martin (wearing his DPL hat) talked to me about this at debcamp. > Rock ON! > An explicit GPL-conversion clause, a la the LGPL, would make the GFDL > unambiguously DFSG-free, of course, and would have the benefits of > GPL-compatibility as well. :-) This might well satisfy the FSF's > interests with respect to print publishers, who will most likely prefer > the GFDL terms to the GPL terms. One thing we are sure about, is that, according to RMS, FSF is aware of the GPL compatibility problem and is going to work this out, as soon as it gets enough manpower. Cheers, -- Jérôme Marant
Re: License of Emacs modes
En réponse à Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Err, I thought the license of interpreted programs had to be > > compatible with the license of interpreters > > I don't think so. You are right. There answer is there: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#InterpreterIncompat > > No, erlang-mode, which is licensed under EPL. > > Yeah, it loads various libraries. I haven't looked at the license to > see what makes it GPL-uncompatible. EPL is a MPL derivative. You can find a link to it at www.erlang.org. > While you're at it, ask the DD to byte-compile the files like most all > other elisp packages do! :-) OK. Cheers, -- Jérôme Marant
Re: License of Emacs modes
En réponse à Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Since Emacsen are GPL-licensed, do Emacs modes have to be shipped > > under a GPL-compatible license? > > Pretty much. It is possible to write stand-alone elisp code that only > uses Emacs internals. At that point you are okay, treating Emacs has > an > interpreter only (so the code it interprets doesn't have to be under a > GPL-compatible license). But as soon as you load an Emacs lisp Err, I thought the license of interpreted programs had to be compatible with the license of interpreters (I recall the Python licensing problems, before Python 2.1). Did I misunderstand? > library > and use it, then you'll using a GPL'ed library (as opposed to an > LGPL'ed > one) and your code must be GPL-compatible (if you distribute it of > course). Ah, you mean that there is only a problem when an elisp code loads some elisp libraries ? > > I discovered one of them which > > could be problematic. > > Is it ilisp? No, erlang-mode, which is licensed under EPL. Cheers, -- Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://marant.org
License of Emacs modes
Hi, Since Emacsen are GPL-licensed, do Emacs modes have to be shipped under a GPL-compatible license? I discovered one of them which could be problematic. Thanks. -- Jérôme Marant
Re: The debate on Invariant sections (long)
En réponse à Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 09:37:31AM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote: > > What is the best way to convince GNU people to change their > licenses? > > (without being pissed of, that is). > > I'm not sure "GNU people" need to be convinced. The only person I > know > of who has come out in vigorous defense of the GNU FDL is Richard > Stallman. (Georg Greve does also agree) It seems to be. But if so, why do they seem not to try to convince him? -- Jérôme Marant
Re: The debate on invariant sections (long)
En réponse à Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Emacs is a perfect example. The documentation can be integrated into > emacs as context-sensitive help. We cannot then distinguish. Since > pretty much all documentation *could* have this integration done, we > can't usefully distinguish at all. > > (In fact, the GFDL licence for the Emacs manual may make integrating it > > as context-sensitive help into the GPLed Emacs legally impossible. > Ugh.) Does removing the manual from the tarball suffice? > > > For > instance, does the GNU manifesto as invariant section hurt? > > I say yes. I don't want to have to put it into my (hypothetical) > context-sensitive help file for emacs, which consists of extracts from Sure. I understand. -- Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://marant.org
Re: The debate on Invariant sections (long)
En réponse à Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I'd do it for GCC. Unfortunately, there's no clearly free version of > the manual which is even remotely recent, so I'd actually have to write > > it from scratch, which I'm not up to doing. > > Actually... given that several GCC contributors aren't happy with the > GFDL and invariant sections, maybe we could add up all the parts *we* > contributed (since the copyright assignment agreement still gives us the > > right to use our own works) and see what it adds up to. What GCC people are doing or going to do? Are you going to try and convince the FSF or are you going to rebel? -- Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://marant.org
Re: The debate on invariant sections (long)
En réponse à Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Jerome Marant: > > Writing docs is something people don't like. Let's be realistic. > > Speak for yourself. I love writing documentation. I'd be doing massive Speak for yourself :-) > amounts of work on the GCC manual right now if it weren't for its > obnoxious licence. And anyone can quote me on that. :-) It's time for you to start a new manual, isn't it? :-) -- Jérôme Marant
Re: The debate on Invariant sections (long)
En réponse à Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > For example, you display a paragraph of text in a menu and include the > pages of the Invariant section in compliance with the license. Fine. > But then you make the font of the Invariant section invisible. You > included it anyway, so are you okay? No, because you used a mechanism > to effectively get around (circumvent) the license requirements. > > Even if it were allowed, forcing that on developers makes it non-free. OK Thanks. -- Jérôme Marant
Re: The debate on Invariant sections (long)
En réponse à Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Jérôme Marant wrote: > > Again, moving a program to non-free will motivate people to > > write a free equivalent. (I've been asked politely not to raise this argument again :-) > Actually, moving a program to non-free has historically been much more > likely to convey a message to the author of that program: "WAKE UP!" True. > When the author wakes up and realizes that their license is keeping > their program off of Debian CD's and relegating it to a backwater, > they might do something about it. Dozens of licenses have been changed > after things were put in non-free. The KDE/Qt issue is prehaps the > best > example of Debian spurring this sort of awareness and change. The KDE/Qt case was probably resolved by users that probably put the pression on Trolltech in order to get KDE in Debian (it was not even in non-free). > > But I can bet such thing is unlikely to often happen with > documentation. > > I think what I've described is just as likely, or more likely to > happen > with documentation. If I write a program and GPL it, and GFDL the > documentation, and then Debian rips my tarball in two, puts the docs > in > some "non-free" thing, and puts the code on a CD with only minimal > docs, > I will be really pissed off at this mess they've made of things. > Especially when users start to complain to me. But I may eventually > also > wake up, realize that the GFDL is doing me no good, and find a better > license. I agree with you: it is likely to happen with the average upstream authors. Is it going to happen with GNU? I'd like it to. > > David Harris and friends > > will never ever write a hundreds pages documentation only > > because the equivalent is not free. > > I don't really dispute this. O'Reilly has done more harm than good if > you look at things in a certian way[1]. Nobody wants to write > definitive > documentation for a free software program if they can buy an O'Reilly > book for $20, and so it's hard to find certian types of documentation > for many programs if you don't have $20 or a bookstore handy. But This is a pretty good illustration of my argument indeed, probably because most people want printed documentation and whether it is free or not, they'll get it for the same price anyway. > sitting back and doing nothing, when we have a chance to change the > status quo for the better is not a good plan either. The trick is to > convince the people who are writing the documentation to make it free. What is the best way to convince GNU people to change their licenses? (without being pissed of, that is). Cheers, -- Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://marant.org
Re: The debate on Invariant sections (long)
Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> OK. I meant linked as with software, there is no code linking to >> documentation. > > I'm not so sure. The Info file isn't dumped raw into a buffer for > display. The info files provides offsets to each Info node such that a > browser that quickly jump to any Node and display only that node. Look > at the contents of /usr/share/info/emacs-21/emacs.gz and tell me that > Info files don't provide hooks to software. It looks like references between nodes but it doesn't look particular to emacs, but to any info reader I guess. >>But I understand now that the binaries and al. >> cannot come along with the documentation. >> >> > > > I think it's shortsighted to put documentation onto a pedestal >> > > > out of the reach of software. What happens if I want to merge >> > > > this documentation into software? >> > > >> > > I don't know. How do software licenses deal with such a case? >> > >> > I don't understand the question. Such a case of merging software >> > into other software? Well, the GPL allows that in GPL-compatible >> > derived works _without_ including invariant bits of code. >> >> No, code + documentation. > > I'm still not sure I understand the question. Do does a software > license handle mixing code and documentation? Well, release the Emacs That's it. > manual under the GPL and I can create derived works that combine both > under the GPL. I may extract bits from the manual to make balloon help > texts, or to make quick help texts under a menu. In those cases I Hmm, my question was rather: GPL handles GPL code + non-GPL-compatible code, but does it handle GPL handles GPL code + non-GPL-compatible documentation? Or does it simply handle GPL thingy + non-GPL-compatible thingy whatsoever? (I'm afraid I did not reread GPL lately). > obviously wouldn't include the GNU manifesto along with my short > excerpts. But I'm not a vilain. So if I redistributed the manual, I'd > leave it intact and the manifesto would stay in. It would be common > sense rather than being forced-to in compliance with the license. Yes, clearly. Cheers, -- Jérôme Marant http://marant.org
Cannot reach Peter Galbraith (Re: The debate on Invariant sections (long))
Sorry for the noise. Peter, I cannot reach you :-( I tried your both addresses. Any idea? Your message To: Peter S Galbraith Subject: Re: The debate on Invariant sections (long) Sent:Thu, 15 May 2003 16:21:41 -0400 did not reach the following recipient(s): Galbraith, Peter on Thu, 15 May 2003 16:21:48 -0400 A syntax error was detected in the content of the message The MTS-ID of the original message is: c=ca;a=govmt.canada;p=gc+dfo.mpo;l=MSGNAT070305152019K8XM3AZ4 MSEXCH:MSExchangeMTA:XLAU:MSGLAUQUES01 -- Jérôme Marant http://marant.org
Re: The debate on Invariant sections (long)
En réponse à Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (=?iso-8859-15?q?J=E9r=F4me?= Marant) > > > Err, it is a regression isn't it? I've always considered it as part > > of Emacs, and even its online help. It has always worked like that. > > If it is part of Emacs, then the whole thing cannot be distributed > even in non-free. The GFDL is very incompatible with the GPL. This is a better reason. Cheers, -- Jérôme Marant
Re: The debate on Invariant sections (long)
En réponse à Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Do you have to display the invariant section as well. It is legal > just > > embedding the invariant section without displaying it? > > You've got to be kidding. For one thing, who wants to jump through > that > hoop. For another, that would likely knowingly circumventing the > license. I did not understand your explaination (English speaking issue I guess). -- Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://marant.org
Re: The debate on Invariant sections (long)
En réponse à Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Emacs embbeds an info reader and makes possible to browse such > > documentation. There is no link in the code AFAIK. > > It was argued in > > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200304/msg00169.html OK. I meant linked as with software, there is no code linking to documentation. But I understand now that the binaries and al. cannot come along with the documentation. > > >> >> But then, if we're seeking for enemies, I believe they > > >> >> are not on GNU side ... > > >> > > > >> >I think we should be true to ourselves, in spite of whatever the > FSF > > >> >say. I think it's unfortunate that not only are they using a > non-free > > >> >license, but that they are promoting it as a free license. > > >> > > >> You are right if you considered such documentation as covered > > >> by DFSG. This is the point of the debate. > > > > > > I think it's shortsighted to put documentation onto a pedestal out > of > > > the reach of software. What happens if I want to merge this > > > documentation into software? > > > > I don't know. How do software licenses deal with such a case? > > I don't understand the question. Such a case of merging software into > other software? Well, the GPL allows that in GPL-compatible derived > works _without_ including invariant bits of code. No, code + documentation. -- Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://marant.org
Re: The debate on Invariant sections (long)
En réponse à Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > No you don't care: you don't use Emacs. > > I do. I even code for it. I use the manuals all the time, and I'm > bothered by the hypocrisy of it. Peter, as a GNU Emacs user, I know this. This was not directed to you. -- Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://marant.org
Re: The debate on Invariant sections (long)
Mark Rafn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, 14 May 2003, Peter S Galbraith wrote: >> I don't agree. Just take out the offending part. > > The GFDL does not allow us to take out the offending part - it contains > sections which are not allowed to be removed. I think this is want he meant. > If Emacs + it's documentation is considered to be a single entity which is > a derived work of both a GPL product and a GFDL product, it is > undistributable even in non-free. Not to mention the rest of GNU software providing documentation. > I personally consider them seperate works which we aggregate and > distribute together, but the FSF takes a pretty wide interpretation of > "linking", so I could be in the minority. > >> Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > That's insane. > > We may disagree with RMS on this, but it's not helpful to call him insane ;) Not RMS. Removing Emacs from main. -- Jérôme Marant http://marant.org
Re: The debate on Invariant sections (long)
Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > Documentation relating to software needs to be really free, in order >> > that we can manipulate it in far more interesting ways (such as >> > refcarding it, embedding it as online help, or updating it because >> > of advances in the program it documents). This is a transformation >> > much more intrusive than merely reformatting it or similar actions >> > which you would >> >> GFDL permits this I think. But you have to keep the invariant section. > > Then it doesn't permit it, does it? > You still haven't addressed this point. But you didn't reply to questions I asked yesterday following your examples, embedding pieces of docs in software that is. >> AFAIK, Emacs is not linked to its documentation. > > I've addressed this and you never commented. I'm sorry if I haven't. Could you point me to this reference please? >> Writing docs is something people don't like. Let's be realistic. > > I've addressed this as well. It's not relevant and I wished you'd stop > using it as an argument. Your right that it's not relevant but shouldn't we consider the world we live in? -- Jérôme Marant http://marant.org
Re: The debate on Invariant sections (long)
En réponse à Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Tue, 13 May 2003, [iso-8859-15] Jérôme Marant wrote: > > > > 1) Are works under the GFDL with invariant sections free? > > > > It depends on 2) If documentation is software then no. > > It also depends on your definition of 'free', of course. What's > yours? What's the definition of free documentation? > > > 2) Can Debian usefully distinguish documentation from software? > > > > This is the point I would like to be convienced about. > > When it's in a distribution primarily formed of software, I don't think > it > can be. There is some stuff - specifications, standards, effectively > electronic copies of what would otherwise be 'standalone' > documentation, > which doesn't have to be "really free" (for want of a better term) in > order > for it to be truly useful to those who would use Debian. I'm thinking > things more of a bookish nature -- which don't *need* to be modifiable > in > order to get close to maximum utility. Alright. > Documentation relating to software needs to be really free, in order > that we > can manipulate it in far more interesting ways (such as refcarding it, > > embedding it as online help, or updating it because of advances in the > program it documents). This is a transformation much more intrusive > than merely reformatting it or similar actions which you would GFDL permits this I think. But you have to keep the invariant section. > > > 5) is everything from the FSF free by definition, even if the > license > > > would be non-free for someone else? > > > 6) should Debian grant special status to the FSF and allow non-free > FSF > > > work to be part of Debian? > > > > 5) and 6) are interesting questions. This wouldn't be fair of course > :-) > > Acknowledging the FSF for all their work is a good move and should be > done > far more often than it is. According them some special right of > passage > goes over the top. It is a mtter of being fair. > > > On Tue, 13 May 2003, [iso-8859-15] Jérôme Marant wrote: > > >> Could we consider some invariant sections as "non-problematic"? > > > > > > This would seem to be issue #6. I'd say "no" for a lot of reasons, > but > > > I'm happy to hear yours. > > > > For instance, does the GNU manifesto as invariant section hurt? > > In the sense that our SC and DFSG state that what we hand to our users > meets > certain criteria, yes, it does, by leaving our users somewhat confused > (to > some greater or lesser degree). Drawing the line somewhere is going to > be a > mighty painful process. We only have one line at present by which we > can > say 'yes' or 'no' (take a guess what it is ), drawing up a bunch more > for > progressively smaller benefit doesn't look like a winning strategy to > me... I'm sorry I don't get it. > > Althought we can convince some random upstream author, do we > > have any chance about FSF manuals? > > Not likely, from the GNU responses I've seen. But if you are a true > friend, > you will continue to pester them until they throw you out and block > your > number with CNI... Ah, like telling Bush we don't agree? Unlikely to be successful :-) > > > If it's part of emacs, then it's very clearly non-free software and > the > > > whole thing should be removed from Debian (unless the FSF doesn't > have to > > > follow everyone else's definition of freedom). > > > > "The whole thing"? Emacs itself? > > Yup. That's insane. > This emacs thing actually amuses me somewhat. The FSF appears to take > as > broad a line as possible in defining linking and other 'combined work' > things (so as to get as much GPL'd software as possible, of course). > But if > that work was really successful, they'd probably end up having > embedded > documentation (which emacs may or may not contain). At any rate, the > GPL > says "thou shalt not distribute a Program with both GPL and other > stuff", > and then goes and does that very same thing themselves... AFAIK, Emacs is not linked to its documentation. > > > I see the motivations as very similar. > > > > Did people suddenly decide to love writing docs? > > I think it's more that some people get very motivated where ideology > is > concerned... Writing docs is something people don't like. Let's be realistic. Cheers, -- Jérôme Marant
Re: The debate on Invariant sections (long)
En réponse à David B Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > It seems obvious to you that documentation is software. It is not > > to me. Simply. > > That's fine, but does that mean that you think it's okay for them to > be > non-Free in some form or another? (Either by restrictions on use, > restrictions on modification, restrictions on storage, or what have You've listed some interesting kinds of restrictions. Maybe some would be acceptable for documentation under certain circumstances, out of DFSG of course. -- Jérôme Marant
Re: The debate on Invariant sections (long)
En réponse à David B Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > No, you'd have to attest that you've rewritten an existing guide > > just because the license wasn't free. I'm dealing with guides > > (hundreds of pages), not 5 pages HOWTOs or such. > > *shrug*, documentation is documentation. If you want some > documentation > and want it to be non-Free, that's your prerogative. But that doesn't > mean it's Free, and it doesn't mean that Debian will accept it as > such. Again, moving a program to non-free will motivate people to write a free equivalent. But I can bet such thing is unlikely to often happen with documentation. David Harris and friends will never ever write a hundreds pages documentation only because the equivalent is not free. -- Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://marant.org
Re: The debate on Invariant sections (long)
David B Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Again, you do consider DFSG applies to documentation. If so, I agree >> with you. But I'm personaly not convinced (yet) it should be. > > Playing the devil's advocate here, let's pretend that "legally" it > doesn't. You still think we should include obviously non-Free > documentation in main? I mean, doesn't that go against the *spirit* of > Free Software, at the very least? Sure. >> >> RMS himself gave no hope to a near modification of the GNU FDL. >> > >> > I don't care what RMS may or may not do. Why do *you*? It is >> > completely >> >> Because it was RMS's reply that was quoted in the first message of the >> thread, don't you recall? > > You mentioned a specific example; Emacs documentation. Thus, whatever > political goals RMS may have is irrelevant to the discussion, as is his > thoughts on the nature of non-Free stuff being "ethical". It is relevant because RMS is Emacs's project leader, so he is this upstream we have to bargain with, isn't he? > *We* only care about whether it's Free or not. We don't what RMS may > have done in the past for Free Software, not in this _specific_ example. > We only care whether or not it's Free. ... DFSG-compliant. >> > irrelevant to the discussion. All that matters is whether the >> > licenses are Free, or not. It's that simple. >> >> And also if we have a hope to see the license being modified. > > Of course, we all do - and you're wanting to get it changed by ignoring > its non-Free nature? Be my guest: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> No you don't care: you don't use Emacs. > > Excuse me? I use it regularly. It's not my regular editor though, and I > constantly consult the on-line docs. So arguably it could affect me more > than it affects a seasoned user. I should never believe what people say on IRC. -- Jérôme Marant http://marant.org
Re: The debate on Invariant sections (long)
David B Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> I'm still waiting for one. > > How about all the various non-GFDL-licensed documentation? There > certainly is a lot of it, and much of it is Free. Take a look at the > LDP. > > And assuming that what drives people to write Free Software is different > in nature than what drives people to write Free documentation is > questionable. Having written a great deal of documentation myself, I > attest to that. No, you'd have to attest that you've rewritten an existing guide just because the license wasn't free. I'm dealing with guides (hundreds of pages), not 5 pages HOWTOs or such. -- Jérôme Marant http://marant.org
Re: The debate on Invariant sections (long)
Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I'd suggest that the old version go in main, and that the new version go > in non-free. The non-free more uptodate one could be setup to supersede > the older free one once installed (if the content is at all different, > otherwise don't bother with it). Why bother uploading to main an outdated manual that noone will use? Do you really think that people will not have to pick it from non-free. I doubt it. -- Jérôme Marant http://marant.org
Re: The debate on Invariant sections (long)
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > So does this mean I can include my shareware fonts and my > for-educational-use-only documentation in my next package upload? The > software is free, so I guess it's ok to let these other things into main > along with it -- right? It seems obvious to you that documentation is software. It is not to me. Simply. -- Jérôme Marant http://marant.org
Re: The debate on Invariant sections (long)
Mark Rafn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Jerome, some of the responses you've gotten have been dismissive of your > opinion, and a lot of this is normal debian-legal style. I hope you don't > take it too personally. Thanks for considering my opinions. I don't think they counts here for a future decision anyway. But I'd be please to see people answering and enlightening me. > > I would like to understand your position better. I'm pretty sure I don't > agree with you, but it's not clear exactly what you want Debian to decide > with respect to the following: > > 1) Are works under the GFDL with invariant sections free? It depends on 2) If documentation is software then no. > 2) Can Debian usefully distinguish documentation from software? This is the point I would like to be convienced about. > 3) If so, is there a different set of criteria which should be used to > test the freedom of documentation as opposed to software? I know nothing of the publishing world. This is the reason why I cannot accept blindly any decision. I don't have the impression of writing code when I write documentation or speeches (cf etc files in Emacs). Why? > 4) Should Debian include (in main) non-free works if they're not software? Hasn't it be the case in the past with some documentations? > And some more specific questions, which I don't think have been asked > directly, as most d-l posters assume "no" to be obvious. > > 5) is everything from the FSF free by definition, even if the license > would be non-free for someone else? > 6) should Debian grant special status to the FSF and allow non-free FSF > work to be part of Debian? 5) and 6) are interesting questions. This wouldn't be fair of course :-) > 7) should Debian leave useful stuff in the main archive even if it is > later determined to be non-free? Of course not :-) > On Tue, 13 May 2003, [iso-8859-15] Jérôme Marant wrote: >> Could we consider some invariant sections as "non-problematic"? > > This would seem to be issue #6. I'd say "no" for a lot of reasons, but > I'm happy to hear yours. For instance, does the GNU manifesto as invariant section hurt? >> >> But then, if we're seeking for enemies, I believe they >> >> are not on GNU side ... > > Quite agreed. I don't consider this to be seeking enemies, but rather > refusing to go along with a friend who is making a very bad mistake. Althought we can convince some random upstream author, do we have any chance about FSF manuals? >> Err, it is a regression isn't it? I've always considered it as part >> of Emacs, and even its online help. It has always worked like that. > > If it's part of emacs, then it's very clearly non-free software and the > whole thing should be removed from Debian (unless the FSF doesn't have to > follow everyone else's definition of freedom). "The whole thing"? Emacs itself? >> You mentioned in a previous mail packaging old versions of manuals. >> This is IMHO pretty useless because noone cares for outdated manuals. > > Some of us don't care for non-free manuals either. There are a number of > cases where I choose to use free software over non-free software that > meets my current needs somewhat better. I'm glad Debian helps me make > that choice, and I don't understand why documentation would be any > different. Probably because free equivalents of non-free docs are not likely to appear, unless those non-free docs get their license changed. People don't like writing docs. >> Althought people can be motivated in forking or reimplementing >> applications, I doubt anyone will be motivated enough to fork >> documentation and noone'll be able to be as up-to-date as the >> Emacs manual. > > I see the motivations as very similar. Did people suddenly decide to love writing docs? -- Jérôme Marant http://marant.org
Re: The debate on Invariant sections (long)
Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> >He believes his invariant sections are an important soapbox for his free >> >software philosophies. In an apparent contradiction, he feels it's a >> >small price to pay if that makes the documentation non-free. >> >> Could we consider some invariant sections as "non-problematic"? > > Well, they interfere greatly with derived works of documents (you can't > merge in text into a derived work without also including the Invariants) > whether the derived works are other manuals, a reference card, or > context-sensitive help in Emacs (a pull-down menu for example). > How you you create such a pull-down menu? Do you have to display the invariant section as well. It is legal just embedding the invariant section without displaying it? > I'd even argue that distributing Emacs that links into the Info document > as it does now is not permitted by the Emacs license. It seeems to be a > combined work with added restrictions beyond what the GPL allows. Emacs embbeds an info reader and makes possible to browse such documentation. There is no link in the code AFAIK. >> >> But then, if we're seeking for enemies, I believe they >> >> are not on GNU side ... >> > >> >I think we should be true to ourselves, in spite of whatever the FSF >> >say. I think it's unfortunate that not only are they using a non-free >> >license, but that they are promoting it as a free license. >> >> You are right if you considered such documentation as covered >> by DFSG. This is the point of the debate. > > I think it's shortsighted to put documentation onto a pedestal out of > the reach of software. What happens if I want to merge this > documentation into software? I don't know. How do software licenses deal with such a case? -- Jérôme Marant http://marant.org
Re: The debate on Invariant sections (long)
David B Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> I'm not asking Debian to include components in main. Those components >> are already in main. I'm asking to keep in main GNU documentations. > > You're asking us to keep non-Free documentation in main. The difference > between that and asking to "include components in main" is irrelevant > and a lawyer's point. Again, you do consider DFSG applies to documentation. If so, I agree with you. But I'm personaly not convinced (yet) it should be. >> RMS himself gave no hope to a near modification of the GNU FDL. > > I don't care what RMS may or may not do. Why do *you*? It is completely Because it was RMS's reply that was quoted in the first message of the thread, don't you recall? > irrelevant to the discussion. All that matters is whether the licenses > are Free, or not. It's that simple. And also if we have a hope to see the license being modified. > So, to sum up: I don't care what RMS may or may not be doing at this > very moment. I don't care about your opinions towards GNU. The only > thing I care about is whether the GNU Emacs documentation is covered by > a non-Free license or a Free license. No you don't care: you don't use Emacs. -- Jérôme Marant http://marant.org
Re: The debate on Invariant sections (long)
David B Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > (Incidentally, copyright licenses are always considered "invariant" :) Yes, I was about to mention copyright licenses > Agreed. I doubt anyone will be motivated enough to write a > Free typesetting application ... oh, wait. > > I doubt anyone will be motivated enough to write a robust set of > graphics drivers for *nix ... oh, wait. > > I doubt anyone will be motivated enough to write a license which ensures > that everybody will always have access to the source code of an > application ... oh, wait. > > Maybe I don't agree. Well, all your examples deal with coding activities so you didn't give any proper counter-example. I'm still waiting for one. -- Jérôme Marant http://marant.org
Re: The debate on Invariant sections (long)
David B Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, 13 May 2003 09:52:16 +0200 (CEST) > Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I'm talking about documentation which comes with free software from >> GNU. You deliberately removed the last part of my message, and that's >> make your reply even more trollish. > > Frankly, the second part of your message made you sound like you had > paranoid delusions; all the talk of "evil" and whatnot. I refrained from > replying to it because "if you don't have anything constructive to say, > say nothing at all". > > Perhaps James did the same. He didn't: he didn't say anything constructive either. -- Jérôme Marant http://marant.org
Re: The debate on Invariant sections (long)
Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote >Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> En réponse à MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> >> > =?iso-8859-15?q?J=E9r=F4me?= Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > > As long as I am a GNU Emacs user, I object to see the Emacs manual >> > > going to non-free. Currently, it is provided by the emacs package >> > >> > You are complaining to the wrong people, I think. Fix the licence, >> > not the social contract. >> >> After reading RMS's reply, it seems not really possible to me. > >Jérôme, that's RMS' choice to make. We don't have to pretend it's free. Yes, it is. >He believes his invariant sections are an important soapbox for his free >software philosophies. In an apparent contradiction, he feels it's a >small price to pay if that makes the documentation non-free. Could we consider some invariant sections as "non-problematic"? >> But then, if we're seeking for enemies, I believe they >> are not on GNU side ... > >I think we should be true to ourselves, in spite of whatever the FSF >say. I think it's unfortunate that not only are they using a non-free >license, but that they are promoting it as a free license. You are right if you considered such documentation as covered by DFSG. This is the point of the debate. >How hard will it be for you to fetch some docs from non-free? I don't >think it's a huge price to pay to be true to ourselves. Err, it is a regression isn't it? I've always considered it as part of Emacs, and even its online help. It has always worked like that. You mentioned in a previous mail packaging old versions of manuals. This is IMHO pretty useless because noone cares for outdated manuals. Althought people can be motivated in forking or reimplementing applications, I doubt anyone will be motivated enough to fork documentation and noone'll be able to be as up-to-date as the Emacs manual. -- Jérôme Marant
Re: The debate on Invariant sections (long)
En réponse à Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > I'm talking about documentation which comes with free software from > > GNU. > > Apparently the fact that the documentation "comes with free software" > does not imply that the documentation *itself* is free. In actuality Of course. > the documentation you are referring to *is* not free. Do you really > argue that it is OK for non-free documentation to be in main, if only > the software it documents is free? The point is whether we can apply DFSG to such documentation. Some people say it does, some other say it doesn't. We need to make a decision about this ASAP otherwise we're going to everlasting discussions. -- Jérôme Marant
Re: The debate on Invariant sections (long)
En réponse à MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > =?iso-8859-15?q?J=E9r=F4me?= Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > As long as I am a GNU Emacs user, I object to see the Emacs manual > > going to non-free. Currently, it is provided by the emacs package > > You are complaining to the wrong people, I think. Fix the licence, > not the social contract. After reading RMS's reply, it seems not really possible to me. But then, if we're seeking for enemies, I believe they are not on GNU side ... -- Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://marant.org
Re: The debate on Invariant sections (long)
En réponse à James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jérôme Marant) writes: > > > As long as I am a GNU Emacs user, I object to see the Emacs manual > > going to non-free. Currently, it is provided by the emacs package > > and I'm able to read it from emacs itself as soon as the package > > is installed. > > So, from the user point of view, I don't see any benefit of moving > > it elsewhere. > > Wow! You're so right! Let's get rid of this silly DFSG thing and move > all software to main, it'd be so much more convenient from a user > point of view!! Yeesh. I'm talking about documentation which comes with free software from GNU. You deliberately removed the last part of my message, and that's make your reply even more trollish. -- Jérôme Marant
Re: The debate on Invariant sections (long)
En réponse à David B Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > As long as I am a GNU Emacs user, I object to see the Emacs manual > > going to non-free. Currently, it is provided by the emacs package > > and I'm able to read it from emacs itself as soon as the package > > is installed. > > So, from the user point of view, I don't see any benefit of moving > > it elsewhere. > > Yes. Non-free stuff sucks, doesn't it? Instead of asking Debian to > include non-Free components in main, try instead to get upstream to > license the documentation in a Free manner. I'm not asking Debian to include components in main. Those components are already in main. I'm asking to keep in main GNU documentations. RMS himself gave no hope to a near modification of the GNU FDL. -- Jérôme Marant http://marant.org
Re: The debate on Invariant sections (long)
Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I agree with all your points. I think we should move forward moving > those docs to non-free. It'll mean a few packages from non-free on my > systems, but if that's what RMS wants it's not a huge deal for me as > long as they are still available. As long as I am a GNU Emacs user, I object to see the Emacs manual going to non-free. Currently, it is provided by the emacs package and I'm able to read it from emacs itself as soon as the package is installed. So, from the user point of view, I don't see any benefit of moving it elsewhere. I'm not in favour of applying such treatments to GNU documentation because GNU people will probably never act an evil way with their invariant sections. I know that everyone should be considered equally but I'm convinced that the evil will not come from the GNU ... Cheers, -- Jérôme Marant http://marant.org
Re: Legal questions about some GNU Emacs files
En réponse à Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > 1) Documentation *is* software; and > 2) The Debian Project treats documentation as software for the > purposes >of interpreting our Social Contract and the Debian Free Software >Guidelines. > > I do not believe the former. I do believe the latter. Can a manifesto be considered as documentation? And more generaly, what about verbatiml texts? -- Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://marant.org
Re: Legal questions about some GNU Emacs files
Anthony Towns writes: > If we decide "hey, let's not distribute them in main at all", I take it > you mean. > > You don't have to distribute pristine tarballs. The xfree86 upstream > source includes some non-free stuff, which is stripped out of the > .orig.tar.gz before Branden uploads it, eg. I didn't know that. > I don't have any problem with an .orig.tar.gz that includes > redistributable but non-DFSG-free stuff, as long as (eg) the .diff.gz > removes those files. Isn't it different from removing them from the pristine tarball since we also distribute packages as sources? > Alternatively, if we keep distributing them, then we should move them > to other packages (if they're relevant to non-emacs-users, doc-debian > or a new gnu-propaganda package, say), or at least to other directories > (/usr/share/doc/emacs, eg). Other packages yes, but not built from the same source I guess ... However, I cannot imagine the GNU manifesto in non-free :-P Cheers, -- Jérôme Marant http://marant.org
Re: Legal questions about some GNU Emacs files
En réponse à Anthony Towns : > If they're important for emacs users, why aren't they important for vi > users? If they're important enough to distribute, why are they hidden > away where they're impossible to find? Anthony, what should we do with those files? Should we remove them from the pistine tarball? Do we have to work out the problem with RMS? Or can we live with it? After all, we've been shipping them for years and they're unlikely to be modified ... The most important would probably be to find a concensus about such files in Debian. Cheers, -- Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://marant.org
Re: Legal questions about some GNU Emacs files
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jérôme Marant) writes: >> take some time to deal with, but it's not remotely difficult. > > How should we proceed? Should we contact RMS directly? > Should a RC bug be opened? Note that we've been shipping theses > files for quite a while now. Hmm, aren't Verbatim texts a special case? I mean that they cannot be considered as documentation and you're not likely to modify them I think. -- Jérôme Marant http://marant.org
Re: Legal questions about some GNU Emacs files
Anthony Towns writes: > On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 10:20:50PM +0200, J?r?me Marant wrote: >> > But you're right that none of the notices you quote describe DFSG-free >> > licensing terms. Feel free to join the ongoing quasiflamewar in the >> > LGPL thread about the degree to which we care about that in the case >> > of Stallman's essays. >> If you think so, we're going to have a hard time dealing with this >> then. > > Why do you think that? It affects a reasonable number of texts, and will I was extrapolating the "GFDL is not DFSG-compliant" discussion. > take some time to deal with, but it's not remotely difficult. How should we proceed? Should we contact RMS directly? Should a RC bug be opened? Note that we've been shipping theses files for quite a while now. Cheers, -- Jérôme Marant http://marant.org
Re: Legal questions about some GNU Emacs files
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > But you're right that none of the notices you quote describe DFSG-free > licensing terms. Feel free to join the ongoing quasiflamewar in the > LGPL thread about the degree to which we care about that in the case > of Stallman's essays. If you think so, we're going to have a hard time dealing with this then. -- Jérôme Marant http://marant.org
Legal questions about some GNU Emacs files
Hi, According to Dylan Thurston (see #154043), some files shipped with GNU Emacs could be considered as non-free. One of them is /usr/share/emacs/21.3/etc/LINUX-GNU. The problem seem to come from the footer which mentions: Copyright 1996 Richard Stallman Verbatim copying and redistribution is permitted without royalty as long as this notice is preserved. Also in /usr/share/emacs/21.3/etc/WHY-FREE Copyright 1994 Richard Stallman Verbatim copying and redistribution is permitted without royalty as long as this notice is preserved; alteration is not permitted. What do you people think of this? -- Jérôme Marant http://marant.org
Re: Bug#173921: hevea is QPL?
Junichi Uekawa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Package: hevea > Version: 1.06-7 > > > I am not sure but I kind of feel some problem with the licensing of > hevea and the way it is linked with GPL portions (ocaml). > > > Reference: > http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html > > and many press releases covering the incident where Qt > was released under GPL/QPL dual-license. No need to worry about this. The whole OCaml runtime is LGPL (with one exception) that make it possible to ship GPL'ed OCaml binaries. Cheers, -- Jérôme Marant http://marant.org
Re: after a long thread and a clarification with O'Reilly ...
On Thu, Jan 31, 2002 at 09:15:47AM -0500, Peter S Galbraith wrote: > > However, they have to make the note publicaly available before the > > package is put together, because one must be able to check the license > > conditions without having to download the package. Where/when do they > > intend to make the note available? > > I don't know about that. We've had lots of packages for which license > clarification was added to the debian/copyright files. I recently proposed to sponsor someone. He had written in the copyright file of his package that the license was GPL but I couldn't find any copyright notice in both the upstream tarball and the website. I simply refused to upload any package until I got the copyright notice within the upstream tarball. -- Jérôme Marant
Re: after a long thread and a clarification with O'Reilly ...
On Thu, Jan 31, 2002 at 11:47:19AM +0100, Sven wrote: > > But the content of the debian package is obtained from the website. > > (IIRC the source of the book is not available). > > The copyright notice of the debian package is related to what has > > been downloaded isn't? No matter the printed version has the notice > > or not. > > No, the way it is obtained is not important, from the time the notice is > added, then it applies. > > That said, if you now get the stuff from the debian package, the note applies. However, they have to make the note publicaly available before the package is put together, because one must be able to check the license conditions without having to download the package. Where/when do they intend to make the note available? -- Jérôme Marant
Re: after a long thread and a clarification with O'Reilly ...
On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 04:55:01PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > O'Reilly wants that each copy of the book contains these notes. > > The web site is maintained by O'Reilly and I can't force them to modify > the content of the web site, if they don't do so one can't distribute > the book dowloaded from the web site without written permission but one > can distribute the book obtained from debian package. But the content of the debian package is obtained from the website. (IIRC the source of the book is not available). The copyright notice of the debian package is related to what has been downloaded isn't? No matter the printed version has the notice or not. > Anyway I will suggest O'Reilly to add these copyright notes also to the > web site. This is a must-be IMHO. -- Jérôme Marant
Re: after a long thread and a clarification with O'Reilly ...
On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 04:21:49PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > ... I managed to obtain another version of their "notes" for the book > redistribution, following this notes the answer to Thomas' question is: > > On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 11:42:46PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > > Can someone take all and only the O'Reilly books from the Debian > > distribution, and print them, and sell them (as an aggregate) to > > whoever they want? > > Yes. > > And these are the new "notes" that O'Reilly wants to be present in the > debian package of the book. I think that this note must be located within the book and at the download location as well, since it must not be specific to the debian package. -- Jérôme Marant
Re: Splitting non-US into "crypto" and "patent" a good idea?
Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Previously J?r?me Marant wrote: > > IIRC, Debian does not provide patented software (no MP3 encoder, > > no DeCSS, etc). > > We do. Look at gif handling code for example. I forgot about gif. Do you have any other examples? -- Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> CV consultable à l'adresse : http://marant.org
Re: Splitting non-US into "crypto" and "patent" a good idea?
Sunnanvind Briling Fenderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hi, I just thought I'd pop by, subscribe, and toss this idea in, > because I've been thinking of it for quite a while. While I haven't > searched the archives yet (sorry if this has come up in the past), I > haven't seen anything on it, so here goes: > > Why not split non-US into "crypto" and "patents"? The reason being: IIRC, Debian does not provide patented software (no MP3 encoder, no DeCSS, etc). So, I don't know what you want to split. -- Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> CV consultable à l'adresse : http://marant.org
Question about the Vovida licence
When looking at the opensource.org page, I discovered that the Vovida Licence (http://www.vovida.org/licence.html) is considered as OSD compliant. However, the fourth clause tells that "4. Products derived from this software may not be called "VOCAL", nor may "VOCAL" appear in their name, without prior written permission." Is this compatible with the third clause of the DFSG ? It looks like a restriction on the distribution. BTW, it looks like a "DJB-like" clause but DJB software are not OSD compliant. Thanks. -- Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --- Debian Activity Page: http://jerome.marant.free.fr/debian ---
Licence of FastCGI
Hi,
I noticed that the package libapache-mod-fastcgi mysteriously disappeared
from the archive but still referenced at packages.d.o. I guess this comes
from its licence.
Why is this licence considered as non-free? Thanks.
This FastCGI application library source and object code (the
"Software") and its documentation (the "Documentation") are
copyrighted by Open Market, Inc ("Open Market"). The following terms
apply to all files associated with the Software and Documentation
unless explicitly disclaimed in individual files.
Open Market permits you to use, copy, modify, distribute, and license
this Software and the Documentation solely for the purpose of
implementing the FastCGI specification defined by Open Market or
derivative specifications publicly endorsed by Open Market and
promulgated by an open standards organization and for no other
purpose, provided that existing copyright notices are retained in all
copies and that this notice is included verbatim in any distributions.
No written agreement, license, or royalty fee is required for any of
the authorized uses. Modifications to this Software and Documentation
may be copyrighted by their authors and need not follow the licensing
terms described here, but the modified Software and Documentation must
be used for the sole purpose of implementing the FastCGI specification
defined by Open Market or derivative specifications publicly endorsed
by Open Market and promulgated by an open standards organization and
for no other purpose. If modifications to this Software and
Documentation have new licensing terms, the new terms must protect Open
Market's proprietary rights in the Software and Documentation to the
same extent as these licensing terms and must be clearly indicated on
the first page of each file where they apply.
Open Market shall retain all right, title and interest in and to the
Software and Documentation, including without limitation all patent,
copyright, trade secret and other proprietary rights.
OPEN MARKET MAKES NO EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTY WITH RESPECT TO THE
SOFTWARE OR THE DOCUMENTATION, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION ANY
WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. IN
NO EVENT SHALL OPEN MARKET BE LIABLE TO YOU OR ANY THIRD PARTY FOR ANY
DAMAGES ARISING FROM OR RELATING TO THIS SOFTWARE OR THE
DOCUMENTATION, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY INDIRECT, SPECIAL OR
CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR SIMILAR DAMAGES, INCLUDING LOST PROFITS OR
LOST DATA, EVEN IF OPEN MARKET HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF
SUCH DAMAGES. THE SOFTWARE AND DOCUMENTATION ARE PROVIDED "AS IS".
OPEN MARKET HAS NO LIABILITY IN CONTRACT, TORT, NEGLIGENCE OR
OTHERWISE ARISING OUT OF THIS SOFTWARE OR THE DOCUMENTATION.
--
Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://jerome.marant.free.fr
Erlang Public Licence and GPL
Hi, I'm wondering whether the Erlang Public Licence and the GPL are compatible. The EPL is a Mozilla PL derivative and the MPL is incompatible with the GPL, so I fear about the EPL status. Can anyone confirm ? Thanks. -- Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://jerome.marant.free.fr
Dristributions around Debian
Hi, Imagine that I take the latest stable debian distribution as it is and that I decide to improve it with modifying boot floppies, adding new install procedures and creating new tools (for instance administration tools). Everything developed DFSG-compliant of course and all developments offered to the debian project ... My question is simple: can I spread It with calling it Debian GNU/Linux", for instance Super Debian GNU/Linux (stupid example but it shows the idea) What are the legal restrictions about it ? Are there possible compromizes ? What am I and what am I not allowed to do with the name "debian" ? Thanks. Jerome. __ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
