Re: RFC about copyrights and right package section for W3C docs.
On Sun, Sep 16, 2001 at 03:46:34PM -0500, David Starner wrote: > If there's an exception for non-topical chapters, then why not for > standards? A non-topical chapter is more likely to get out of date > than a standard, which by design is intended to be eternally fixed. Well, if you join the Austin group, you can see how a new version of a standard evolves by editing the old version. However, beside creating new standards (imagine w3c would go away, or the open group, you'd need to start from scratch without borrowing from them), standards are incredible useful to write documentation, like reference manuals. The glibc manual and the linux man pages would benefit greatly from a free POSIX standard (I filed a bug recently because a missing point in the mmap() function documentation in the glibc manual, but as I had read the standard just a few minutes ago, I had to be careful not to copy what the standard says, although it was only two or three lines of text). And the gcc manual would benefit from a free ISO C standard. In fact, it should bother you that some of the standards we build upon are not even free for distribution, not to speak of modification. As I occasionally have to deal with standards on the one hand and free implementations on the other hand, I have stumbled more than once where I wanted to use standards text to document my source or programs (last time with a kill(1) implementation for shellutils). Thanks, Marcus -- `Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' Debian http://www.debian.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] Marcus Brinkmann GNUhttp://www.gnu.org[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.marcus-brinkmann.de
Re: RFC about copyrights and right package section for W3C docs.
On Thu, Sep 20, 2001 at 07:04:12PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > On the other hand, licenses themselves are not subject to being licensed, > thus DFSG requirements don't refer to the bogus concept of a license > about a license. Why aren't licenses subject to being licensed? They are large copyrighted works; you could restrict and license a license anyway you want. The GPL has a license; it's: Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed. Anyway, that's not what was being discussed. The question was about the large sections of text in some GNU Free Documentation License'd texts that can not be modified - for example, "Funding Free Software" in the gcc manual. Is that DFSG-free or otherwise permissable in main? If it is, then what about other unmodifiable texts? Where's the line, and why? -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org When the aliens come, when the deathrays hum, when the bombers bomb, we'll still be freakin' friends. - "Freakin' Friends"
Re: RFC about copyrights and right package section for W3C docs.
On Thu, Sep 20, 2001 at 10:01:55PM +0200, Robert Bihlmeyer wrote: > > It isn't. But the DFSG don't state that every bit of a package must be > > modifiable, either. I take it that every functional part must be > > modifyable at least. On Thu, Sep 20, 2001 at 05:21:41PM -0500, David Starner wrote: > "(3) The license must allow modifications and derived works . . ." > No qualifications on modifications here. 4 is the patch clause, which > makes no qualifactions on what can be modified, just how, except for > name or version changes. It doesn't let you restrict what can be > modified, and it only applies to source code. On the other hand, licenses themselves are not subject to being licensed, thus DFSG requirements don't refer to the bogus concept of a license about a license. -- Raul
Re: RFC about copyrights and right package section for W3C docs.
On Thu, Sep 20, 2001 at 10:01:55PM +0200, Robert Bihlmeyer wrote: > David Starner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I don't see the distinction. Are icons metadata? The name almost certainly > > is . . . but we made a special exception for name changes in the DFSG. > > Icons are not metadata. The author is metadata, as is the publisher, > and when something was published. None of which we were talking about; all of which the GPL forces you to preserve on source code. > > > You can't take package X from main, > > > change /usr/share/doc/X/copyright, and redistribute it (except for > > > packages in the public domain). > > > > But that's fraud. We can't do that for legal and ethical reasons. That > > has nothing to do with removing some rant that the original author > > wrote. > > Have you actual examples of rants that are protected by FDL invariant > sections to point at, or do you make this up while you go along? Look at the gcc info pages. "Funding Free software" is clearly marked uneditable at the bottom, and is also listed as invariant in the license tag (I had to look in the source file - it's not listed in the /usr/share/doc/gcc-3.0-doc/copyright, nor could I find it in the info files.) "GNU and Linux" is not, amazing enough . . . > * Acknowledgements > > Robert Bihlmeyer wants to thank Gnomovision for their support. They > basically paid him to do nothing so he could write the Frobster3000 > manual. > > Do you consider this DFSG-free? Yes. > Is removing this less unethical than > removing my name altogether? Yes, but not much. > From my viewpoint, its like BSD/advertising. Not pretty, but free. Sure. > > I don't see where metadata is specified in the DFSG, > > It isn't. But the DFSG don't state that every bit of a package must be > modifiable, either. I take it that every functional part must be > modifyable at least. "(3) The license must allow modifications and derived works . . ." No qualifications on modifications here. 4 is the patch clause, which makes no qualifactions on what can be modified, just how, except for name or version changes. It doesn't let you restrict what can be modified, and it only applies to source code. > Finally, applying the Debian Free *Software* Guidelines may be a bit > off, altogether. Oh, indeed! I emphatically agree. But if we're going to ignore the DFSG, I'd like some coherent consensus on acceptable licenses for documentation, instead of just ad-hoc decisions. -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org When the aliens come, when the deathrays hum, when the bombers bomb, we'll still be freakin' friends. - "Freakin' Friends"
Re: RFC about copyrights and right package section for W3C docs.
David Starner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > IPv6 and C99 didn't change IPv4 or C89, did they? Indeed, gcc 3.0 didn't automatically delete all copies of gcc 2.95 either, and MS-Windows 95 was not impacted by '98. Does that imply that these software packages are eternally fixed and never revised? > I don't see the distinction. Are icons metadata? The name almost certainly > is . . . but we made a special exception for name changes in the DFSG. Icons are not metadata. The author is metadata, as is the publisher, and when something was published. > > You can't take package X from main, > > change /usr/share/doc/X/copyright, and redistribute it (except for > > packages in the public domain). > > But that's fraud. We can't do that for legal and ethical reasons. That > has nothing to do with removing some rant that the original author > wrote. Have you actual examples of rants that are protected by FDL invariant sections to point at, or do you make this up while you go along? Now I'll make something up ... suppose I place the following short chapter under a "don't remove this, you may add to it" clause: * Acknowledgements Robert Bihlmeyer wants to thank Gnomovision for their support. They basically paid him to do nothing so he could write the Frobster3000 manual. Do you consider this DFSG-free? Is removing this less unethical than removing my name altogether? Now, down to earth. /usr/share/doc/info/copyright says: All manuals Copyright (C) 1988, 1990-1993, 1995-2001 Free Software Foundation, Inc. Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.1 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, with the Front-Cover texts being ``A GNU Manual'', and with the Back-Cover Texts as in (a) below. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled ``GNU Free Documentation License'' in the Emacs manual. (a) The FSF's Back-Cover Text is: ``You have freedom to copy and modify this GNU Manual, like GNU software. Copies published by the Free Software Foundation raise funds for GNU development.'' It's in main. Do you consider that non-free? >From my viewpoint, its like BSD/advertising. Not pretty, but free. > I don't see where metadata is specified in the DFSG, It isn't. But the DFSG don't state that every bit of a package must be modifiable, either. I take it that every functional part must be modifyable at least. > except a specific exception for name changes. Actually (4) grants more exceptions. Finally, applying the Debian Free *Software* Guidelines may be a bit off, altogether. -- Robbe signature.ng Description: PGP signature
Re: RFC about copyrights and right package section for W3C docs.
David Starner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > The notion that > > standards do not get out of date can't be meant seriously in a world of > > SQL92, IPv6, C89, etc. etc. > > IPv6 and C99 didn't change IPv4 or C89, did they? When writing a new version of a standard it is often convenient to borrow text from the previous version, as the alternative is either to just list the differences, thereby forcing the reader to constantly refer to the old standard and risk getting confused, or to rewrite everything from scratch, thereby risking accidental differences between the two versions. So the standard should have a licence that allows a new standard to reuse text from it, even if the new standard is produced by a different organisation (the old organisation might have disappeared). But of course it is quite reasonable for the licence to demand that the name be changed when a derivative work is made in this fashion. Edmund
Re: RFC about copyrights and right package section for W3C docs.
> The notion that > standards do not get out of date can't be meant seriously in a world of > SQL92, IPv6, C89, etc. etc. IPv6 and C99 didn't change IPv4 or C89, did they? > No. Modification to the content must be allowed ... certainly not > modification to the metadata. I don't see the distinction. Are icons metadata? The name almost certainly is . . . but we made a special exception for name changes in the DFSG. > You can't take package X from main, > change /usr/share/doc/X/copyright, and redistribute it (except for > packages in the public domain). But that's fraud. We can't do that for legal and ethical reasons. That has nothing to do with removing some rant that the original author wrote. > Whether something is really metadata is a matter of interpretation, > and may depend on the specific case. I don't see where metadata is specified in the DFSG, except a specific exception for name changes. > Personally, I think all those people/organisations that want to > protect the sancticity of their standard should just require > derivative works to bear different names (or versions). I agree. I'd also like to see people stop using these stupid patch license and write-your-own-GPL licenses. But I don't see how that matters. -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org "I don't care if Bill personally has my name and reads my email and laughs at me. In fact, I'd be rather honored." - Joseph_Greg
Re: RFC about copyrights and right package section for W3C docs.
[please cc me] David Starner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > If there's an exception for non-topical chapters, then why not for > standards? Because these are completely different things, see below. > A non-topical chapter is more likely to get out of date than a > standard, which by design is intended to be eternally fixed. Clarification: the FDL restricts non-modification to quite specific sections, non-topicality is only one necessity. From the horses mouth: A ``Secondary Section'' is a named appendix or a front-matter section of the Document that deals exclusively with the relationship of the publishers or authors of the Document to the Document's overall subject (or to related matters) and contains nothing that could fall directly within that overall subject. (For example, if the Document is in part a textbook of mathematics, a Secondary Section may not explain any mathematics.) The relationship could be a matter of historical connection with the subject or with related matters, or of legal, commercial, philosophical, ethical or political position regarding them. You can probably see now how information in these secondary sections does not get obsolete (only maybe uninteresting). The notion that standards do not get out of date can't be meant seriously in a world of SQL92, IPv6, C89, etc. etc. > In any case, the DFSG offers exceptions for neither, so the > non-modification clause in the GNU FDL is not _okay_ with the DFSG. > By the strict reading of the DFSG, if it is to apply to documentation > and RFC's, modificiation must be allowed. No. Modification to the content must be allowed ... certainly not modification to the metadata. You can't take package X from main, change /usr/share/doc/X/copyright, and redistribute it (except for packages in the public domain). Whether something is really metadata is a matter of interpretation, and may depend on the specific case. Personally, I think all those people/organisations that want to protect the sancticity of their standard should just require derivative works to bear different names (or versions). -- Robbe signature.ng Description: PGP signature
Re: RFC about copyrights and right package section for W3C docs.
On Sun, Sep 16, 2001 at 08:55:45PM +0200, Robert Bihlmeyer wrote: > > So, should the RFCs go in non-free as well? > > Probably. See bug#92810, which probably needs more attention. > > > AIUI, the GNU Open Publication License also allows authors to restrict > > the right of making modifications to parts of the documentation. Is > > that non-free, too??? > > There is no such thing. If you meant the GNU Free Documentation > License, that one allows non-modification clauses only for non-topical > chapters. So I think it is ok with DFSG. If there's an exception for non-topical chapters, then why not for standards? A non-topical chapter is more likely to get out of date than a standard, which by design is intended to be eternally fixed. In any case, the DFSG offers exceptions for neither, so the non-modification clause in the GNU FDL is not _okay_ with the DFSG. By the strict reading of the DFSG, if it is to apply to documentation and RFC's, modificiation must be allowed. -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org "I don't care if Bill personally has my name and reads my email and laughs at me. In fact, I'd be rather honored." - Joseph_Greg
Re: RFC about copyrights and right package section for W3C docs.
[cc and reply-to more appropriate list] Richard Atterer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sat, Sep 15, 2001 at 10:42:59AM +0200, Robert Bihlmeyer wrote: [doc-html-w3] > > That package is in non-free. IIRC the issue is that you can't modify > > the standards. Which is somewhat understandable, but still relegates > > them to non-free. > > Hm, but the Internet RFCs are in main and they don't allow unlimited > modification, either: [...] > So, should the RFCs go in non-free as well? Probably. See bug#92810, which probably needs more attention. > AIUI, the GNU Open Publication License also allows authors to restrict > the right of making modifications to parts of the documentation. Is > that non-free, too??? There is no such thing. If you meant the GNU Free Documentation License, that one allows non-modification clauses only for non-topical chapters. So I think it is ok with DFSG. The documentation of the info and texinfo packages are placed under GNU FDL, and both are in main. Probably affects other packages as well. There's also the Open Publication License (not from GNU) which I am less familiar with. -- Robbe signature.ng Description: PGP signature
